Perceived challenges to public health in Central and Eastern Europe: a qualitative analysis

The 2-day workshop was conducted in English and structured into eight sessions lasting on average 1.5 hours each. We chose the following topics for the sessions: coronary heart disease, stroke, prevention, obesity, alcohol, tobacco, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. We decided to focus on certain diseases and risk factors as well as on prevention as a broader topic, also with regard to the limited time available. The selection was based on personal expertise and interests of the planning group members. Other important public health needs and topics, for example cancer, mental health problems, or injuries were not included in the workshop. Also, public health areas such as health services provision or health economics were not allocated separated sessions. They were therefore only discussed in the context of specific diseases.

Two chairpersons out of the public health experts from the workshop chaired each session on a rotation base. A short presentation (5–10 minutes) on the topic was given at the beginning of each session to stimulate discussion. The structure of the sessions recommended to the respective chairpersons was based on the method of the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ developed by Edward de Bono [11]. However, in most sessions the moderators did not follow the predefined structure but instead allowed for free and lively discussions after the initial presentation.

The discussions of the workshop were recorded and the proceedings transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were entered into atlas.ti for content analysis. In a first step, a coding of all text took place along the thematic issues. The coded segments were then divided into statements about the status quo, existing problems and research questions, and a country code assigned to all segments. Following this, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the major issues arising within the broad themes and developed new codes. All materials were then re-coded using the code list developed. Coding was independently conducted by two investigators. The final code list was discussed in the research group. A comparison of the code list across thematic codes revealed a list of conceptual issues that proved pertinent across all topics. These concepts were used for the final work-up of the material.

Occasionally, quotations had to be edited for readability, taking into account that for most participants of the workshop English was not their native language. The person responsible for data analysis (CH) did not have access to any personal data of the participants and was not present at the workshop herself. To ensure anonymity for the quotes, we did not keep country names and personal data such as age in quotes cited in this text. Participants were informed a priori about the recording and subsequent analysis and provided verbal consent.

An important theme throughout the discussions was the relationship between clinical medicine and public health. Prevention programmes were perceived as being often headed by medical professionals in clinical fields. Since clinical medicine and public health have different perspectives and medicine itself is diversified, conflicts were seen to arise easily (Table 2, Quote 1a).

Clinical medicine seemed the more powerful of the siblings. Its research may be influenced by industry interests and, in most countries, the social prestige and income of clinicians is higher than that of public health workers. Workshop participants perceived it as insufficient to allocate a certain amount of the time of health professionals to prevention efforts, without defining this more precisely (Table 2, Quote 1b).

In some countries the interplay between clinical medicine, public health and prevention was perceived as working extremely well. To achieve this, political will was thought to be as important as the willingness of different professions to collaborate on common goals (Table 2, Quote 1c).

Overall, the perception among the workshop participants was that clinical medicine and public health programmes are competing for funds. Results of clinical research are regularly celebrated as breakthroughs, which may be one of the reasons why political support for public health is weaker than for clinical medicine and biomedical research (Table 2, Quote 1d).

The pharmaceutical industry was perceived to play an important role in the predominance of clinical medicine, as it earns a lot of money through clinical approaches, but hardly anything from most public health measures (Table 2, Quote 1e).

The workshop participants could not identify ‘natural’ forces that exist to bring the public health agenda to the forefront of funding. However, the group agreed that there was a definite need for increased funding of public health activity in Central and Eastern Europe. Particularly, the breakdown of the former political and economic system was described as resulting in significant health risks, as it introduced a myriad of lifestyle changes, such as an increase in alcohol consumption in some countries and the increasing availability of ‘junk food’ (Table 2, Quote 2a).

Apart from lifestyle changes, there was also a breakdown of the often well-functioning public health infrastructures, such as cancer registries, screening programmes, and the surveillance of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis (Table 2, Quote 2b).

Accession to the European Union was perceived as offering new opportunities for strengthening public health. One of the participants expressed the hope that public health interventions could be improved by following European directives (Table 2, Quote 2c).

Lobbying was seen as crucial to ensure a higher visibility and funding of public health efforts. Especially the local constituency was mentioned as a valuable source to increase visibility of neglected themes. Some also mentioned the use of elections. In election times, many programmes may get funded that otherwise go unnoticed. Similarly, coalition-building with individual politicians was mentioned. In line with lobbying with local constituencies, a “bottom-up” approach was discussed as a possible avenue to initiate change.

A theme discussed throughout the disease spectrum was the effectiveness of prevention efforts. Most participants believed that there was very limited data on effective interventions (Table 2, Quote 3a and b).

One of the most important points brought up during the workshop was that funds need to be made available for well-designed evaluations of public health interventions. This would also help to build public health research capacity. The group believed that if the effectiveness of prevention efforts were proven, political and public support would be easier to achieve (Table 2, Quote 3c).

Many participants pointed out that comparable information on disease and risk factor trends in Europe was limited, and that this hindered the coordination of public health programmes across countries. At the same time, creating comparable surveillance data was recognised as being difficult, as diagnosing techniques may differ across countries (Table 2, Quote 4a)

Collecting high-quality data was further complicated through different treatment facilities and traditions. In some countries, diseases like stroke may be treated in hospitals, while in others they were treated in local health facilities. This may even differ from region to region in a single country (Table 2, Quote 4b).

Developing comparable data for Europe will require careful consideration of how, where and by whom data should be collected in each country and region. This will necessitate an understanding of local health care practices within and across countries.

Throughout the discussions, group members mentioned areas for action that they found most pressing for public health in Europe. Table 3 subsumes activities and goals of the four areas for action identified (Table 3).

The relationship between clinical medicine and public health appeared to work well in some countries, whereas public health experts from other countries reported an unequal relationship. Clinical medicine was generally regarded as the stronger partner, particularly with regard to funding and available resources. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), expenditure on organised public health and prevention programmes ranged between 2.3% of total expenditure on health in the Czech Republic and 5.0% in the Slovak Republic in 2007 [12]. The percentage of total expenditure Central and Eastern European countries were willing to allocate to public health and prevention was similar to Western European countries. However, total expenditure on health per capita varied largely between countries and was approximately 70% higher in Western Europe compared to Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, the researchers of the SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe) project showed a marked variation in the amount of public health publications by country in Europe [13]. Eastern and Southern European countries appeared to under-invest in public health research compared with Northern European countries. Taking into account the higher burden of diseases amenable to public health and prevention in Central and East Europe, there seems to be an inverse relationship between available resources and need for public health and prevention within Europe even when considering differences in programme costs.

The workshop discussions suggested that empirical data on the effectiveness of preventive and public health programmes are lacking in many countries. The SPHERE project yielded a similar perception among public health experts in Europe [14]. In comparison to clinical interventions, the evaluation of preventive programmes has been less rigorously conducted throughout the last decades in most countries. Preventive programmes are often multi-faceted and dependent on the socio-cultural environment rendering their evaluation and the comparison across different settings challenging. Some databases such as the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Cochrane Public Health Group summarise the existing evidence on prevention, however, the transferability of the results to Central and Eastern European countries remains to be assessed [15‐17]. Measures to timely adapt and re-evaluate effective programmes particularly in countries with fewer resources need to be developed. Closely linked to the principles of evidence-based prevention is the concept of ‘best practice’ [18]. During the workshop, participants repeatedly suggested identifying and using ‘best practice’ examples from other countries such as the California Tobacco Control Program in the United States [19]. A European database on effective prevention, including examples of ‘best practice’ and results of country-specific programmes, would be a valuable tool for decision-making.

Workshop participants emphasized the urgent need for data harmonisation and standardised data collections across Europe. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization (WHO), similarly, states that health data – health indicators and statistics - are essential for monitoring trends in health and evaluating the impact of public health policies and programmes [20]. The European Parliament and the Council have also recognised the need to systematically collect, process and analyse comparable data for an effective monitoring of the state of health in the European Union [21]. Regional and time comparisons of health data have often been based on studies using different definitions and assessment methods and are thus of limited validity. Existing data needs to be adapted whereas new data collection should be performed using standardised assessment methods. The European Community Health Indicators’ (ECHI) project, for example, has aimed at providing a frame for comparable data collection in the public health area in Europe [22]. The availability of health indicators varies between regions with Central and Eastern European countries having less available data on morbidity and risk factors compared to Western European countries [23]. Funding is required to fulfil the request for data harmonisation in Europe, particularly with regard to countries with lower resources at their disposal. In addition to the quality of the underlying health data, the accessibility of the data by public health experts needs to be improved. Although databases such as the ‘Health for All Database’ of the WHO Regional Office for Europe [1] are valuable tools, the variety of existing databases seems to be a hindrance for their day-to-day use. A one-in-all database combining data from the respective sources with a user-friendly surface might be the solution.

Engaging the public was perceived by our workshop participants as a way to influence policy. Good scientific evidence is often insufficient to convince policy-makers to implement and finance prevention efforts [24]. Policy-making usually happens quickly and builds on generalized knowledge and demands from key stakeholders. Commercial interests routinely use marketing and lobbying strategies to influence both the public and health policy makers [25, 26]. As health professionals may even themselves become the target of attacks [27], professional training in marketing and lobbying may be needed.

Overall, the themes and challenges of public health identified by the experts from Central and Eastern European countries in our workshop did not appear to differ to large extent from those of Europe as a whole [9, 10]. The main tasks of public health were considered to be the reduction of risky behaviours (risk factors) in society and to prevent diseases. This may partially have been induced by the choice of topics for the workshop with a focus on risk factors and prevention. However, a survey among experts from Central and Eastern European countries yielded similar results, albeit with some differences between countries [9]. In Estonia, for example, the emphasis appeared to be on ‘health protection’ (environmental health, communicable disease control, immunization). In other countries, the role of public health was seen in ‘personal hygiene education’. Only the experts from Slovenia and Romania included management of healthcare services as a public health function. Potential barriers to the provision of effective public health in Central and Eastern European countries reported in our workshop appear to be similar to those observed in most Western European countries. Similarly to our workshop analysis, a qualitative study conducted in Bulgaria identified insufficient institutional, political and financial support, the dearth of local epidemiological data as well as the lack of public health capacity as problems [28]. Specific issues explored for Central and Eastern European countries were, however, the increased culture of consumption and in particular the increased availability of unhealthy diets such as fast food.

In this qualitative study, we used purposive sampling to get a wide range of perspectives and experiences [29]. The generalisability of our results is thus limited as it is by nature a non-randomly selected and non-representative sample. In addition, a total of 25 out of the invited 179 public health experts (14%) participated with a lack of representatives from countries such as Albania, Hungary, Montenegro, or Latvia. Budgetary reasons or time constraints might have been underlying reasons for non-participation. In our workshop, most participants were senior public health experts and many of them had a medical and/or other doctoral degree; some of our participants have studied or worked abroad in international networks. They might thus differ from the majority of public health experts in their country. Over the last two decades, public health education in Central and Eastern Europe has shifted its focus from hygienic and sanitary measures to a broader concept of public health [30]. Our participants appeared to be more representative of these ‘newer’ concepts. Further research may include a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative with quantitative data. However, the lack of a licensing or registration system for public health experts in European countries certainly is a hindrance to determining representativeness.

In addition, we chose a predefined set of topics for the workshop sessions. Other topics with public health importance could be not included, mainly because of the time available. For example, researchers of the SPHERE project performed surveys among public health experts about research priorities in 12 European countries [14]. Research priorities among survey participants from Eastern European countries included cardiovascular diseases and mental health as well as food safety and nutrition, environmental health and occupational health.