Civil society engagement in innovation and research through the European Public Health Association.

BACKGROUND: The European Public Health Association (EUPHA) proposed and led PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), with co-financing by the European Commission, to assess public health innovation and research at national level in Europe. PHIRE was also designed to promote organizational development and capacity building of EUPHA. We assess the success and limitations of using EUPHA's participative structures. METHODS: In total, 30 European countries were included-27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. EUPHA thematic section presidents were asked to identify country informants to report, through a web-based questionnaire, on eight public health innovations. National public health associations (EUPHA member organizations) were requested to identify their national public health research programmes and calls, review the health research system, coordinate a stakeholder workshop and provide a national report. The section and national reports were assessed for responses and completeness. RESULTS: Half of the final responding CIs were members of EUPHA sections and the other half gained from other sources. Experts declined to respond for reasons including lack of time, knowledge of the innovation or funding. National public health associations held PHIRE workshops with Ministries of Health in 14 countries; information for 10 countries was gained through discussions within the national association, or country visits by PHIRE partners. Six countries provided no response. Some national associations had too weak organizational structures for the work or insufficient financial resources or criticism of the project. CONCLUSION: EUPHA is the leading civil society organization giving support to public health research in Europe. PHIRE created new knowledge and supported organizational development. EUPHA sections gained expert reports on public health innovations in European countries and national public health associations reported on national public health research systems. Significant advances could be made if the European Commission worked more directly with EUPHA's expert members and with the national public health associations.

Impact of innovations in national public health markets in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Social innovations can contribute to health and wellbeing. PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe) investigated the impacts at national level of innovation projects funded by the European Union Public Health Programme. METHODS: Through the European Public Health Association, experts assessed the uptake of the eight public health projects, for 30 European countries. Their reports were assembled by country and, thereafter, national public health associations reviewed the reports. Following stakeholder workshops, or internal and external consultations, 11 national reports were produced which included discussion on the impacts of the public health innovations in national product markets. RESULTS: In 11 countries, there were reports on the eight innovations for 45 (51%) of the possible public health markets. The innovations contributed positively to policy, practice and research, across different levels and in different ways, in 35 (39%) market, while competing innovation activities were recorded in 10 (11%) markets. The workshops also discussed contributing factors and limitations in dissemination and timing for policy cycles. CONCLUSIONS: The impacts of European Union social innovations in public health markets can be identified through national discussions. Further attention should be given to understanding drivers and incentives for successful public health innovations.

Programmes and calls for public health research in European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Public health research, at population and organizational level, needs to be identified independently within 'health' research from biomedicine and life sciences. In PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), we investigated the extent and character of public health research calls and programmes in European countries. METHODS: Country respondents, identified through national member associations of the European Public Health Association completed a standardized recording instrument. Public health research was defined, and the call period limited to the latest full year (2010). Of the 30 countries included (EU 27 plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), there were reports for 25 countries A simple classification of the calls was developed. RESULTS: There were 75 calls and programmes included. Of these, 41 (55%) together were in France and the UK, and 34 in a further 14 countries, while 9 countries reported there were no calls or programmes opened in 2010. Calls were categorized across diseases, behaviours, determinants, services and methodologies. Some calls were broad, while others--particularly in the countries with several calls--were more detailed towards specific issues. Levels of funding varied markedly and were difficult to define. Where stated, in 32 responses, 19 calls were only open to national applicants and 13 from abroad. CONCLUSIONS: Most European countries have competitive programmes and calls relevant for public health research, but they are poorly identified. Only a minority of countries present a wide range of topics and specific fields. Effort is needed to develop classifications for public health programmes and calls for public health research, improve information (including financial) collection to enable systematic comparisons and build greater recognition of public health research within research communities, with national and European research funding organizations, and for practitioners and policymakers.

Competitive funding and structures for public health research in European countries.

INTRODUCTION: The European Union is giving increasing emphasis to research as a driver for innovation and economic development. The European collaborative study PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe) investigated the funding and structures of public health research at national level in European countries. METHODS: Background materials were prepared for national public health associations of European countries to hold workshops or discussions with research and policy stakeholders on their public health research systems. The reports, supplemented from internet sources for 23 EU countries (four did not contribute), provided information for framework analysis. RESULTS: All countries have public funding and administrative structures for research, but structures for public health research are more varied. In most countries, competitive health research funding is controlled by the Ministry of Science, with little input from the Ministry of Health. In four countries, Ministries of Health provide competitive funding alongside Ministries of Science, and in two countries there is a single health research council. There is no comparative reporting of public health research funding, and little connection with European public health research programmes. CONCLUSION: Europe needs a comprehensive picture of national and regional systems of public health research, in order to critically assess them and better adapt to changes and challenges, and to achieve a European Research Area for public health.