This paper examines communication tools for software development and data management teams who are distributed geographically. Using a case study approach, we describe collaboration processes used by RTI International's (RTI's) application programming teams for three projects. Techniques range from simple conference calls and email through webcasts, collaboration websites and remote server control. These tools allow teams to work together to produce software and data products in spite of differences in locations, time zones and network access. The qualitative findings are relevant to increased globalization, outsourcing and telecommuting in the software development workforce.

Background Health reporting should deliver up-to-date data and information on the population's health status, its determinants and on national (or regional) healthcare services. Establishing an information or discussion base for health policy is an important objective ('data for action'), but health reporting also addresses other target groups like scientists, the media or the general public. Depending on the needs and competencies of the respective target groups, requirements for health reporting formats will differ. At the same time, heterogeneity of health reporting practices in Member States causes, next to occasional language barriers, difficulties in facilitating access to EU-comparable information. To allow for alignment and identification of good practices, our study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the health reporting formats in the EU. Methods A web-based desk research of health reporting formats and their target groups was conducted among EU Member States and associated InfAct partner countries. Good practice examples were identified on the basis of quality criteria derived from 'Good Practice in Health Reporting' for Germany and the Eva PHR (Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports) project. Based on the findings of the desk research, a guidance document for health reports will be drafted in close cooperation with InfAct partner countries. Results The guidance should accommodate the heterogeneity of reporting practices at EU level while defining desirable and feasible good practice standards. Although the focus is on public health reports, recommendations for other formats of health reporting will also be included. It will facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to EU-comparable and high-quality health information. Conclusions The guidance is expected to be a useful tool for making health information adequately available to the targeted groups while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU.

Geographic information systems (GISs) are computer-based systems with which geographical data can be recorded, stored, managed, analyzed, visualized and provided. In recent years, they have become an integral part of public health research. They offer a broad range of analysis tools, which enable innovative solutions for health-related research questions. An analysis of nationwide studies that applied geographic information systems underlines the potential this instrument bears for health monitoring in Germany. Geographic information systems provide up-to-date mapping and visualization options to be used for national health monitoring at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). Furthermore, objective information on the residential environment as an influencing factor on population health and on health behavior can be gathered and linked to RKI survey data at different geographic scales. Besides using physical information, such as climate, vegetation or land use, as well as information on the built environment, the instrument can link socioeconomic and sociodemographic data as well as information on health care and environmental stress to the survey data and integrate them into concepts for analyses. Therefore, geographic information systems expand the potential of the RKI to present nationwide, representative and meaningful health-monitoring results. In doing so, data protection regulations must always be followed. To conclude, the development of a national spatial data infrastructure and the identification of important data sources can prospectively improve access to high quality data sets that are relevant for the health monitoring.

Developers must understand the needs of user populations and the potential benefits of the new software to them, so that the development team can create an effective system. Especially for applications employed outside the computing profession, it is important for the software team to learn context and workflow and to understand the value that their development work will bring to the users. This article discusses design and implementation considerations for computer audiorecorded interviewing (CARI), a method coming into widespread use for survey research in the social sciences. When implemented as part of the data collection process, CARI allows a survey manager to listen to the exact circumstances of how questions were asked and answered during the interview, a much more powerful approach than prior indirect methods of quality control and improvement. Design considerations can be complex when planning an integrated system. Based on a decade of experience and prior implementation of several distinct CARI systems, this article explores a part of the operational world of survey research from the eye of the system developer. It offers context for those developers who are unfamiliar with survey research or for anyone who is unfamiliar with CARI operations. Discussion focuses on benefits, requirements, user goals, system design challenges, and options.Keywords audio recording, system design, interface design, CARI, computer audio-recorded interviewing, survey research, qualitative researchWhat do the following have in common: making policy decisions for handling child abuse, estimating cocaine use in cities and states, knowing if the cost of living is going up or down, and setting the fees for hunting and fishing licenses? All of them depend on data collected through research surveys, underlying decisions made by federal, state, and local agencies. Nearly every step of gathering, managing, and delivering survey data occurs electronically, shepherded by software and hardware

Background Health information (HI) strategies exist in several EU Member States, however, they mainly focus on technical issues and improving governance rather than on content-related priority setting. There is also little research available about national prioritization processes underlying HI development for policy support in the EU. The aim of this study was to broaden the knowledge base on HI prioritization strategies and to encourage expert exchange towards good practice models. A specific focus was put on HI produced for national health reporting, this being a crucial tool for policy advice. Methods We conducted a literature search to identify published and grey literature on national HI prioritization. This was followed by a two-round Policy Delphi study, where we explored which processes and methods exist in EU Member States and associated countries for the prioritization of HI collection. In the first round, information about these processes was gathered in semi-structured questions; in the second round, participants were asked to rank the identified approaches for desirability and feasibility. The survey was conducted online; participants were recruited from the membership of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct – Information for Action). Results 119 experts were contacted, representing 40 InfAct partner institutions in 28 EU Member States and associated countries. Of these, 28 experts responded fully or partially to the first round, and six to the second round. In the first round, more than half of the respondents reported the existence of structured HI prioritization processes in their countries. To prioritize HI, a clear preference was given in the second round for a formal, horizontal process which includes different experts and stakeholders. National public health institutes were named desirable key stakeholders in this process, and also desirable and feasible coordinators for stakeholder coordination. Conclusion Health information prioritization methods and procedures reflect the heterogeneity of national public health systems in European countries. Mapping, sharing and ranking prioritization methods and procedures for “good practices” provides a meaningful basis for expert knowledge exchange on HI development. We recommend to make this process part of a future sustainable EU health information system and to use the information gathered in this project to initiate the development of a guidance “Good Practice HI Prioritization” among EU Member States and associated countries.