In recent decades, the number of people living with one or more chronic diseases has increased dramatically, affecting all sectors of society, particularly the labour market. Such an increase of people with chronic diseases combined with the aging of working population affects income levels and job opportunities, careers, social inclusion and working conditions. Both legislation and company regulations should take into account the difficulties that workers experiencing chronic diseases may face in order to be able to formulate innovative and person-centred responses to effectively manage this workforce while simultaneously ensuring employee wellbeing and continued employer productivity. The European Joint Action “CHRODIS PLUS: Implementing good practices for Chronic Diseases” supports European Union Member States in the implementation of new and innovative policies and practices for health promotion, diseases prevention and for promoting participation of people with chronic diseases in labour market. Therefore, a Toolbox for employment and chronic conditions has been developed and its aim is to improve work access and participation of people with chronic diseases and to support employers in implementing health promotion and chronic disease prevention activities in the workplace. The Toolbox consists of two independent instruments: the Training tool for managers and the Toolkit for workplaces that have been tested in different medium and large companies and working sectors in several European countries.

No abstract

Policy dialogs are deliberative dialogue that gather policy makers and relevant stakeholders from across disciplines to discuss a topic of mutual interest. They typically serve as a single element in a broader policymaking cycle, either informing the content of new policy or forming a component of policy evaluation and review. In the joint action CHRODIS PLUS, national policy dialogs were conducted in fourteen EU Member States. The aim of the dialogs was to identify new policies or changes to existing policies and legislation that are capable of tackling major risk factors for chronic disease, to strengthen health promotion and prevention programs and to ensure health systems are equipped to respond to priority issues within the chronic diseases field. In this paper, we present the CHRODIS PLUS policy dialog methodology, as well as results and lessons learnt from three national policy dialogs held in Ireland, Portugal and Spain. After discussion of the results, we conclude that the CHRODIS PLUS methodology is an effective mechanism to provoke deliberative discussion around chronic disease prevention and management in different countries. However, it is essential to ensure adequate human and financial resources—as well as political commitment—to accomplish objectives set out during the policy dialogs. We argue that priority-setting across sectors can improve the resilience of health systems and opportunities for investment in Health in All Policies (HiAP), both at European Union and Member State levels.

Background Health promotion and disease prevention programme registries (HPPRs), also called ‘best practice portals’, serve as entry points and practical repositories that provide decision-makers with easy access to (evidence-based) practices. However, there is limited knowledge of differences or overlaps of howe current national HPPRs in Europe function, the context and circumstances in which these HPPRs were developed, and the mechanisms utilised by each HPPR for the assessment, classification and quality improvement of the included practices. This study prepared an overview of different approaches in several national HPPRs and the EU Best Practice Portal (EU BPP) as well as identified commonalities and differences among the core characteristics of the HPPRs. Methods We conducted a descriptive comparison – that focused on six European countries with existing or recently developed/implemented national HPPR and the EU BPP –to create a comparative overview. We used coding mechanisms to identify commonalities and differences; we performed data management, collection and building consensus during EuroHealthNet Thematic Working Group meetings. Results All HPPRs offer a broad range of health promotion and disease-prevention practices and serve to support practitioners, policymakers and researchers in selecting practices. Almost all HPPRs have an assessment process in place or planned, requiring the application of assessment criteria that differ among the HPPRs. While all HPPRs collect and share recommendable practices, others have implemented further measures to improve the quality of the submitted practices. Different dissemination tools and strategies are employed to promote the use of the HPPRs, including social media, newsletters and publications as well as capacity building workshops for practice owners or technical options to connect citizens/patients with local practices. Conclusions Collaboration between HPPRs (at national and EU level) is appreciated, especially regarding the use consistent terminology to avoid misinterpretation, facilitate cross-country comparison and enable discussions on the adaption of assessment criteria by national HPPRs. Greater efforts are needed to promote the actual implementation and transfer of practices at the national level to address public health challenges with proven and effective practices.

Background: Health promotion and disease prevention programme registries (HPPR), or ‘best practice portals’, serve as entry points and practical repositories which enable decision-makers to have easy access to (evidence-based) practices. However, there is limited knowledge of differences or overlaps in the functioning of current national HPPRs in Europe, the context and circumstances in which these HPPRs were developed, and the mechanisms utilised by each HPPR for assessment, classification and quality improvement of included practices. The aim of the study was to prepare an overview of different approaches in several national HPPRs and the EU Best Practice Portal (EU BPP) as well as to identify commonalities and differences among core characteristics of the HPPRs. Methods: A descriptive comparison – focused on six European countries with an existing or recently developed/implemented national HPPR and the EU BPP – was conducted to create a comparative overview. Coding mechanisms were used to identify commonalities and differences, and data management, collection and building consensus were performed during EuroHealthNet Thematic Working Group meetings. Results: All HPPRs offer a broad range of health promotion and disease prevention practices and are designed to support practitioners, policy makers and researchers in selecting practices. Almost all HPPRs have an assessment process in place or planned, requiring the application of assessment criteria that differ among the HPPRs. While all HPPRs collect and share recommendable practices, others have implemented further measures to improve the quality of submitted practices. Different dissemination tools and strategies are employed to promote the use of the HPPRs, including social media, newsletters and publications as well as capacity building workshops for practice owners or technical options to connect citizens/patients with local practices. Conclusions: Collaboration between HPPRs (at national and EU levels) is appreciated, especially in terms of using consistent terminology to avoid misinterpretation and facilitate cross-country comparison, as well as to facilitate discussion on the adaption of assessment criteria by national HPPRs. Greater efforts are needed to promote the actual implementation and transfer of practices at national level in order to address public health challenges with proven and effective practices.