Linking Public Health Monitoring to Dialogue-based Decision-making During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experiences from a Participatory Pilot in the Netherlands

Abstract

Introduction:In the Netherlands, a nationally coordinated research program has been initiated to monitor the immediate and long-term public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This contribution describes the design and early results of a continuous dialectic process to involve national and local public health authorities and professionals in monitor-driven decision-making to anticipate the health impact of viral infections and mitigation measures.Method:An ongoing series of dialogue sessions was organized upon the release of quarterly and annual results of the monitoring program. Apart from supporting public health decision-making, the stepwise dialectic process aimed to ensure multi-sectoral learning and co-creation and nurture a sense of ownership among stakeholders from policy, practice and science. National and regional public health authorities served as hub coordinators and participated in determining and approaching relevant stakeholders. Whenever considered relevant, new stakeholders were invited to participate.Results:In the first year, three dialogue sessions were organized, with an emphasis on youth and young adults. Representatives from ministries, municipalities, health organizations, experiential experts and knowledge institutes attended the sessions. Based on the exchange, policy recommendations were formulated and shared among participants. The themes prioritized included mental health issues, overburdened healthcare services, involvement of vulnerable groups in policy development and understanding the complex myriad of risk factors. Moreover, several factors were identified that might facilitate or hinder the implementation and uptake of monitoring findings.Conclusion:The dissemination and discussion of monitoring data proved to be of added value in developing evidence-informed solutions and areas of attention for future monitoring, including the need to track progress of local and national implementation of recommendations. More broadly, the methodology piloted during the program requires further testing as a community engagement strategy and might be meaningful in other crises or problem contexts as well.