ECHIM Final Report

At the first meetings of the ECHIM Core Group and Working Party Indicators it was
agreed that the first step in the implementation of the ECHI Indicators has to be to define
each shortlist indicator with greater clarity. This was considered necessary before the
Member States could be asked to deliver information on data availability and indicators
in their own country. It was also noted that if the Member States were presented with
the content of international databases, that might help to clarify to them the intentions
of ECHIM. Sometimes it does not make sense to define a single indicator, but rather
a data source from which more than one indicator can be calculated. In theory, the
assessment of the indicator definition and the data sources should be independent of
data availability. In practice, however, there is interdependence. The need for data may
stimulate the development of an HIS or HES instrument, but the pragmatic aspect of
the final shape of these instruments will determine the indicator definition. All this can
be brought together and presented by the Documentation Sheets.
After reviewing several examples of different “metadata tables” from the literature and
other projects, the ECHIM Helsinki Secretariat sketched the first version of the structure
of the Documentation Sheets. Step by step, after various drafts and revisions of example
sheets, the ECHIM Core Group decided on the final structure of the Documentation
Sheets, which was then accepted by Working Party Indicators.
It was agreed that a Documentation Sheet should include ECHI indicator name,
operational definition and calculation, further relevant dimensions (e.g. relevant
breakdown categories, by e.g. sex/gender, age, region, socio-economic status), definition
of preferred underlying data sources, availability and quality of data in international
databases (especially Eurostat, WHO Health for All and OECD Health Data),
underlying concepts and rationale.
Sometimes it might be necessary to have two or more definitions, calculation methods or
data sources for one indicator. This may be the case if there are two different acceptable
data sources for the indicator, but also when limitations of data availability may lead
to second choices of acceptable data sources. In case there is more than one acceptable
data source and/or calculation method for the indicator in question, all the various
options should be listed, in order of preference. This prioritisation should be based on
expert arguments (e.g. suggestions by the ECHIM Core Group, other Working Parties,
projects and experts) and decided upon by the ECHIM Core Group and accepted by
Working Party Indicators.
It was also agreed that European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) instruments should
be incorporated as a primary data source when appropriate. In accordance with the
agreement above, it should be indicated whether EHIS is a preferable data source for the
indicator, or whether other sources are more suitable
41