The focus in health information system (HIS) evaluation thus far has largely been on assessing the production of data, and less the use and impact of the evidence in practice. Currently however, there is no consensus on how to audit knowledge translation at systems level. Knowledge translation (KT) is defined as the appropriate exchange, synthesis and ethically sound application of knowledge to strengthen the healthcare system and improve health.
Developing a methodology to monitor KT M is a new endeavor that can provide important insights on the preparedness of health systems to leverage evidence for intervention.
BAHCI addressed knowledge brokering between different stakeholders such as policy makers and healthcare providers, doctors and their patients, patients and their community representatives. Across EU-MS, structural differences (i.e. services provided in private or public hospitals) can also influence the nature of these interactions and play a role. This is why developing the “HI Impact Index” required complete representation from EU-MS, and an interdisciplinary approach that involves experts in healthcare delivery and service use, public health surveillance and monitoring, health care policy and financing, health information technology, patients and users. We had access to leaders of national and European public health institutes through the InfAct Joint Action on Health Information, a consortium of 40 national health and research institutes, as well as ministries of health in 28 European countries.
An important aspect of BAHCI has been to take into consideration the use of health information by new actors that impact on health (i.e. food and agriculture, education, urban planning, …), whereas traditionally HIS evaluation has focused on data production within the health system. Because the HI-Impact framework incorporates a cross-sectoral dimension, this facilitated the uptake of of BAHCI outputs to PHIRI, the EU Horizon 2020 project to investigate the wider impacts of COVID-19 on population health and well-being. Our study confirms that now more than ever producing data is not enough, national health agencies need to envision ways to bring high quality information center stage into policy and practice.
