Overall Findings for the Czech Republic

The Czech Republic is ranked 8th among 29th countries examined in the ICP (same as Spain). An above-average performance, it ranks above Sweden and South Korea but below the US and France. Its best performing category is health system and governance (ranked 6th); infrastructure is a particular strength, although political will is lagging. It is ranked 9th on care delivery.

It is a leading country in immunisation, screening and early detection and service availability but clinical guidelines and patient-centred care can be improved.

Policy and planning is the weakest area (ranked 15th, although still above the global average), where the most visible weakness is the lack of a fully developed national cancer control plan, although a cancer registry and cancer research are well developed.

To interpret the value of the ICP requires acknowledgment of the limitations in modelling a complex reality. 

• First, we include only indicators that draw on broadly comparable data available across all countries. In aiming for global comparability, some of the country specificity and context may be lost.
• For some indicators we rely on the latest available data from international sources. There may be lags in this information as global studies take several years to be completed. In addition, some of the information may rely on a single data point, such as self reporting from officials to the WHO. 
• The need for consistency in measuring results across countries can sometimes produce anomalous scores. Countries may have different coverage or strategies for various interventions depending on their priorities and epidemiological profiles. For example, a country may address hepatitis B vaccination differently based on prevalence. But for the purpose of regional comparability we take only one view, and that is the proportion of one-year-olds who complete a full vaccination schedule.
• This is mainly a study of inputs (such as policy, institutions, resources, infrastructure and governance). Hence, results can be contradictory with observed outcomes. For example, a country with recent policy developments may score well even where healthcare outcomes are suboptimal. A self-assessment of the quality of implementation of policies is a crucial task for country leaders to ensure that these translate into positive outcomes. 
• Measuring policies has inherent difficulties. Policies may not last long or may be insufficiently implemented to have an impact. Why measure policies? Because policy is the first step in recognising a problem and working towards a solution. 
• Lack of data across every country makes it possible for the ICP to measure implementation to only a limited degree. Following through on policy statements is far from guaranteed, and the quality of implementation can vary greatly. For example, the existence of a national cervical cancer screening programme in the public service is not a confirmation of optimal coverage. 
• This study presents only a relative classification of a small group of countries, so interpretation of rankings should be done with caution.

For further details on the methodology of the ICP, please see the methodology report on the World Cancer Initiative webpage.