Putting newborn hearing screening on the political agenda in Belgium: local initiatives toward a community programme – a qualitative study

Health Research Policy and Systems

Alain Levêque²  Raphaël Lagasse¹  Bénédicte Vos¹ 

[1]Centre d’Epidémiologie Périnatale (CEpiP), Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium

[2]Université libre de Bruxelles, School of Public Health, Research Center Epidemiology, Biostatistic and Clinical Research, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium

关键词: Policy making;    Newborn hearing screening;    Health policy;    Agenda-setting;   

Others  :  828601
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-12-32

 received in 2014-02-12, accepted in 2014-06-19,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Kingdon model, based on the convergence of three streams (problem, policy, and politics) and the opening of a policy window, analyses the process by which a health issue is placed on the political agenda. We used this model to document the political agenda-setting process of the newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium.

Methods

A qualitative study based on a document review and on semi-directed interviews was carried out. The interviews were conducted with nine people who had played a role in putting the issue in question on the political agenda, and the documents reviewed included scientific literature and internal reports and publications from the newborn hearing screening programme. The thematic analysis of the data collected was carried out on the basis of the Kingdon model’s three streams.

Results

The political agenda-setting of this screening programme was based on many factors. The problem stream included factors external to the context under study, such as the technological developments and the contribution of the scientific literature which led to the recommendation to provide newborn hearing screening. The two other streams (policy and politics) covered factors internal to the Belgian context. The fact that it was locally feasible with financial support, the network of doctors convinced of the need for newborn hearing screening, the drafting of various proposals, and the search for financing were all part of the policy stream. The Belgian political context and the policy opportunities concerning preventive medicine were identified as significant factors in the third stream. When these three streams converged, a policy window opened, allowing newborn hearing screening onto the political agenda and enabling the policy decision for its introduction.

Conclusions

The advantage of applying the Kingdon model in our approach was the ability to demonstrate the political agenda-setting process, using the three streams. This made it possible to identify the many factors involved in the process. However, the roles of the stakeholders and of the context were somewhat inexplicit in this model.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Vos et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Walt G, Shiffman J, Schneider H, Murray SF, Brugha R, Gilson L: ‘Doing’ health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges. Health Policy Plan 2008, 23:308-317.
• [2]Almeida C, Bascolo E: Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature. Cad Saude Publica 2006, 22(Suppl):S7-S19. Discussion S20-33
• [3]Exworthy M: Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy Plan 2008, 23:318-327.
• [4]Quirk PJ: Political innovation in America: The politics of policy initiation by Nelson W. Polsby; agendas, alternatives and public policies by John W Kingdon review by Paul J. Quirk. J Policy Anal Manage 1986, 5:607-613.
• [5]Buse K, Mays N, Walt G: Making Health Policy. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education; 2012.
• [6]Wilson JMG, Jungner G: Principes et Pratique du Dépistage des Maladies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1970.
• [7]Briard ML: Neonatal screening: definitions and criteria. Arch Pediatr 2003, 10(Suppl 1):19s-21s.
• [8]Scriver CR, Feingold M, Mamunes P, Nadler HL: Screening for congenital metabolic disorders in the newborn infant: congenital deficiency of thyroid hormone and hyperphenylalaninemia. Pediatrics 1977, 60:389.
• [9]Belgium: Arrêté royal relatif à l’agréation des services de dépistage des anomalies congénitales métaboliques et à l’octroi de subventions à ces services. A.R. 13-03-1974 M.B. 19-04-1974. Brussels
• [10]European Consensus Statement on Neonatal Hearing Screening. Finalized at the European Consensus Development Conference on Neonatal Hearing Screening. Milan, 15-16 May 1998 Acta Paediatr 1999, 88:107-108.
• [11]Joint Committee on Infant Hearing: Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007, 120:898-921.
• [12]Van Kerschaver E, Boudewyns AN, Stappaerts L, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH: Organisation of a universal newborn hearing screening programme in Flanders. B-ENT 2007, 3:185-190.
• [13]Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R: A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan 2000, 15:338-345.
• [14]Yoshinaga-Itano C: Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI). J Commun Disord 2004, 37:451-465.
• [15]Joint Committee on Infant Hearing: Joint committee on infant hearing 1994 position statement. American Academy of Pediatrics Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Pediatrics 1995, 95:152-156.
• [16]World Health Organization: Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening. Current Issues and Guiding Principles for Action. Outcome of a WHO informal consultation held at WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland. 9–10 November. 2009.
• [17]US Preventive Services Task Force: U.S. preventive services task force: newborn hearing screening: recommendations and rationale. Am J Nurs 2002, 102:83-89.
• [18]US Preventive Services Task Force: Universal screening for hearing loss in newborns: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Pediatrics 2008, 122:143-148.
• [19]Thompson DC, McPhillips H, Davis RL, Lieu TL, Homer CJ, Helfand M: Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. JAMA 2001, 286:2000-2010.
• [20]Bailey HD, Bower C, Krishnaswamy J, Coates HL: Newborn hearing screening in Western Australia. Med J Aust 2002, 177:180-185.
• [21]Mehl AL, Thomson V: The Colorado newborn hearing screening project, 1992–1999: on the threshold of effective population-based universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics 2002, 109:E7.
• [22]Pastorino G, Sergi P, Mastrangelo M, Ravazzani P, Tognola G, Parazzini M, Mosca F, Pugni L, Grandori F: The Milan project: a newborn hearing screening programme. Acta Paediatr 2005, 94:458-463.
• [23]Kerschner JE: Neonatal hearing screening: to do or not to do. Pediatr Clin North Am 2004, 51:725-736.
• [24]ONE: Rapport Banque de Données Médico-Sociales, Données Statistiques 2006–2007. [ http://www.one.be/uploads/tx_ttproducts/datasheet/Rapport_BDMS_2006_2007__03.pdf webcite]
• [25]Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA: Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health 2009, 99:1576-1583.
• [26]Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur RE: Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:207-217.
• [27]Collins T: Health policy analysis: a simple tool for policy makers. Public Health 2005, 119:192-196.