BackgroundPublic health policies aim to improve and maintain the health of citizens. Relevant data and indicators are needed for a health policy that is based on factual information. After 14 years of work (1998–2012), the multi-phase action on European Community Health Indicators (ECHI) has created a health monitoring and reporting system. It has generated EU added value by defining the ECHI shortlist with 88 common and comparable key health indicators for Europe.MethodsIn the 2009-2012 Joint Action for ECHIM project the ECHI shortlist was updated through consultation with Member State representatives. Guidelines for implementation of the ECHI Indicators at national level were developed and a pilot data collection was carried out.Results67 of the ECHI Indicators are already part of regular international data collections and thus available for a majority of Member States, 14 are close to ready and 13 still need development work. By mid-2012 half of the countries have incorporated ECHI indicators in their national health information systems and the process is ongoing in the majority of the countries. Twenty-five countries were able to provide data in a Pilot Data Collection for 20 ECHI Indicators that were not yet (fully) available in the international databases.ConclusionsThe EU needs a permanent health monitoring and reporting system. The Joint Action for ECHIM has set an example for the implementation of a system that can develop and maintain the ECHI indicators,, and promote and encourage the use of ECHI in health reporting and health policy making. The aim for sustainable public health monitoring is also supported by a Eurostat regulation on public health statistics requiring that health statistics shall be provided according to the ECHI methodology. Further efforts at DG SANCO and Eurostat are needed towards a permanent health monitoring system.

BackgroundHealth Examination Surveys (HESs) can provide essential information on the health and health determinants of a population, which is not available from other data sources. Nevertheless, only some European countries have systems of national HESs. A study conducted in 2006–2008 concluded that it is feasible to organize national HESs using standardized measurement procedures in nearly all EU countries. The feasibility study also outlined a structure for a European Health Examination Survey (EHES), which is a collaboration to organize standardized HESs in countries across Europe.To facilitate setting up national surveys and to gain experience in applying the EHES methods in different cultures, EHES Joint Action (2010–2011) planned and piloted standardized HESs in the working age population in 12 countries. This included countries with earlier national HESs and countries which were planning their first national HES. The core measurements included in all surveys were weight, height, waist circumference and blood pressure, and blood samples were taken to measure lipid profiles and glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). These are modifiable determinants of major chronic diseases not identified in health interview surveys. There was a questionnaire to complement the data on the examination measurements.MethodsEvaluation of the pilot surveys was based on review of national manuals and evaluation reports of survey organizers; observations and discussions of survey procedures during site visits and training seminars; and other communication with the survey organizers.ResultsDespite unavoidable differences in the ways HESs are organized in the various countries, high quality and comparability of the data seems achievable. The biggest challenge in each country was obtaining high participation rate. Most of the pilot countries are now ready to start their full-size national HES, and six of them have already started.ConclusionsThe EHES Pilot Project has set up the structure for obtaining comparable high quality health indicators on health and important modifiable risk factors of major non-communicable diseases from the European countries. The European Union is now in a key position to make this structure sustainable. The EHES core survey can be expanded to cover other measurements.

Valid health information is essential for improving people's health across Europe. There is an urgent need to develop harmonized methods for gathering and disseminating representative health data. These methods should be developed jointly by DG Health and Consumers, Eurostat and EU Member States.

BackgroundFinland has a long tradition of gathering information about the health and welfare of the adult population.DesignSurveys and administrative registers form the basis for national and local health monitoring in Finland.ResultsDifferent data sources are used in Finland to develop key indicators, which can be used to evaluate how the national health policy targets have been met in different parts of the country and in different population subgroups. Progress has been shown in chronic disease risk factors, such as smoking reduction. However, some health policy targets have not been met. Socioeconomic health differences, for example, have remained large compared with other European countries.ConclusionAlthough data availability for key health indicators is good in Finland, there is a need for wider and more comprehensive use of this information by political decision-makers and healthcare professionals.

To raise awareness about health inequalities, a well-functioning health inequality monitoring system (HIMS) is crucial. Drawing on work conducted under the Joint Action Health Equity Europe, the aim of this paper is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses in current health inequality monitoring based on lessons learned from 12 European countries and to discuss what can be done to strengthen their capacities. Fifty-five statements were used to collect information about the status of the capacities at different steps of the monitoring process. The results indicate that the preconditions for monitoring vary greatly between countries. The availability and quality of data are generally regarded as strong, as is the ability to disaggregate data by age and gender. Regarded as poorer is the ability to disaggregate data by socioeconomic factors, such as education and income, or by other measures of social position, such as ethnicity. Few countries have a proper health inequality monitoring strategy in place and, where in place, it is often regarded as poorly up to date with policymakers’ needs. These findings suggest that non-data-related issues might be overlooked aspects of health inequality monitoring. Structures for stakeholder involvement and communication that attracts attention from policymakers are examples of aspects that deserve more effort.