» Articles » PMID: 39070597

National Health Examination Surveys; a Source of Critical Data

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to contribute technical arguments to the debate about the importance of health examination surveys and their continued use during the post-pandemic health financing crisis, and in the context of a technological innovation boom that offers new ways of collecting and analysing individual health data (e.g. artificial intelligence). Technical considerations demonstrate that health examination surveys make an irreplaceable contribution to the local availability of primary health data that can be used in a range of further studies (e.g. normative, burden-of-disease, care cascade, cost and policy impact studies) essential for informing several phases of the health planning cycle (e.g. surveillance, prioritization, resource mobilization and policy development). Examples of the use of health examination survey data in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region (i.e. Finland, Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and the WHO Region of the Americas (i.e. Chile, Mexico, Peru and the United States of America) are presented, and reasons why health provider-led data cannot replace health examination survey data are discussed (e.g. underestimation of morbidity and susceptibility to bias). In addition, the importance of having nationally representative random samples of the general population is highlighted and we argue that health examination surveys make a critical contribution to external quality control for a country's health system by increasing the transparency and accountability of health spending. Finally, we consider future technological advances that can improve survey fieldwork and suggest ways of ensuring health examination surveys are sustainable in low-resource settings.

References
1.
Oyebode O, Mindell J . Use of data from the Health Survey for England in obesity policy making and monitoring. Obes Rev. 2013; 14(6):463-76. DOI: 10.1111/obr.12024. View

2.
Cuschieri S, Pallari E, Terzic N, AlKerwi A, Sigurdardottir A . Mapping the burden of diabetes in five small countries in Europe and setting the agenda for health policy and strategic action. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021; 19(1):43. PMC: 8006502. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00665-y. View

3.
Saint-Maurice P, Troiano R, Matthews C, Kraus W . Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity and All-Cause Mortality: Do Bouts Matter?. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(6). PMC: 5907548. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007678. View

4.
Vartiainen E, Laatikainen T, Peltonen M, Puska P . Predicting Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke: The FINRISK Calculator. Glob Heart. 2016; 11(2):213-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.gheart.2016.04.007. View

5.
Kuczmarski R, Ogden C, Guo S, Grummer-Strawn L, Flegal K, Mei Z . 2000 CDC Growth Charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital Health Stat 11. 2002; (246):1-190. View