Suchergebnisse

Cultural competence has been recommended as a strategy to reduce health inequalities among migrants but, so far, the effects on health care remain sparse. Cultural competence neglects the roles played by the institutional and political levels on the attitudes of health professionals. This thesis aims at challenging the health inequities experienced by migrants in involving the health professionals and the institutions at the meso and the macro levels. We investigated three main research questions. To what extent do culturally competent interventions contribute to the reduction of health inequalities and to the improvement of quality of care? How cultural competence is implemented and diffused in the health services in Belgium? We conducted the COMETH study, a quantitative empirical study with a social network analysis design. What are the best practices and political recommendations for improving equity in health for migrants beyond cultural competence? Firstly, when the intervention aims at reducing health inequalities, universal interventions are more adapted, while improving quality of care requires specific interventions. Secondly, the sense of responsibility of health professionals towards cultural competence is influenced by the context surrounding the health services. Thirdly, cultural competence spreads in health services through effects of leadership, particularly the role-modelling, rather than through interpersonal relationships. Fourthly, there is a low level of commitment towards cultural competence among health professionals. The responsibility to adapt is put on the individuals or patients rather than on the institutions and the policymakers. Finally, the concept of cultural competence is discussed in the Belgian health system. ; (SP - Sciences de la santé publique) -- UCL, 2013

Cultural competence has been recommended as a strategy to reduce health inequalities among migrants but, so far, the effects on health care remain sparse. Cultural competence neglects the roles played by the institutional and political levels on the attitudes of health professionals. This thesis aims at challenging the health inequities experienced by migrants in involving the health professionals and the institutions at the meso and the macro levels. We investigated three main research questions. To what extent do culturally competent interventions contribute to the reduction of health inequalities and to the improvement of quality of care? How cultural competence is implemented and diffused in the health services in Belgium? We conducted the COMETH study, a quantitative empirical study with a social network analysis design. What are the best practices and political recommendations for improving equity in health for migrants beyond cultural competence? Firstly, when the intervention aims at reducing health inequalities, universal interventions are more adapted, while improving quality of care requires specific interventions. Secondly, the sense of responsibility of health professionals towards cultural competence is influenced by the context surrounding the health services. Thirdly, cultural competence spreads in health services through effects of leadership, particularly the role-modelling, rather than through interpersonal relationships. Fourthly, there is a low level of commitment towards cultural competence among health professionals. The responsibility to adapt is put on the individuals or patients rather than on the institutions and the policymakers. Finally, the concept of cultural competence is discussed in the Belgian health system. ; (SP - Sciences de la santé publique) -- UCL, 2013

outcomes, lived experiences Background: The wo rkshop focus on the role played by public policy in influencing immigrant health outcomes. It aims at answering the following question:How does form of the welfare state interact with immigration policy and local conditions to shape the lived experiences a nd health outcomes of immigrants? Several hypotheses were made and the response to this question was brought through 9 case studies. Using the Esping - Andersen's typology of welfare state, three approaches have been studied: Anglo - Saxon (Australia, Canada,U K), Continental (Austria,Belgium,Germany), or Nordic tradition (Denmark, Norway,Sweden). Each approach entails a different concept that informs public policies. While multiculturalism is particularly dominant among Anglo - Saxon nations, continental nations focus on solidarity while developing public policy likely to shape immigrant experiences. When looking at the Nordic nations, public policy regarding immigration is shaped by the concept of equity. These case studies display the lived experience of immigra nts and the impact of public policy on these experiences. Health status is examined in relation to these two concerns, including the healthy immigrant effect. Form of the welfare state interacted with societal attitudes towards immigrants such each one nat ion from each form of welfare state was identified as having an approach towards immigration that could be seen as potentially health threatening. Objectives: •To provide a comparative view on immigration/integration policies in relation to outcomes on eq uity in terms of socioeconomic status and health. •To provide insights about the health immigrant effect and how public policy may impede/support it •To discuss the typology of Esping - Andersen and its application to the topic of immigration experience, hea lth and public policy. Results: We aim at providing a more comprehensive and comparable landscape on the relation of immigration policies and observable effects on socioeconomic/health status of immigrant populations. It aims at providing some guidelines for public policy to address these issues. - Introduction: public policy, health status & welfare state - From Canada to Australia: how welfare state interact with immigration policy? - Supporting public policy: what are the guidelines ? - Open discussion base d on critical thinking questions Message: The workshop identifies key guidelines for supporting public policy in health and immigration.Interaction between public policy,lived experiences,health outcomes and immigration support the health in all - in - polici es approach.

outcomes, lived experiences Background: The wo rkshop focus on the role played by public policy in influencing immigrant health outcomes. It aims at answering the following question:How does form of the welfare state interact with immigration policy and local conditions to shape the lived experiences a nd health outcomes of immigrants? Several hypotheses were made and the response to this question was brought through 9 case studies. Using the Esping - Andersen's typology of welfare state, three approaches have been studied: Anglo - Saxon (Australia, Canada,U K), Continental (Austria,Belgium,Germany), or Nordic tradition (Denmark, Norway,Sweden). Each approach entails a different concept that informs public policies. While multiculturalism is particularly dominant among Anglo - Saxon nations, continental nations focus on solidarity while developing public policy likely to shape immigrant experiences. When looking at the Nordic nations, public policy regarding immigration is shaped by the concept of equity. These case studies display the lived experience of immigra nts and the impact of public policy on these experiences. Health status is examined in relation to these two concerns, including the healthy immigrant effect. Form of the welfare state interacted with societal attitudes towards immigrants such each one nat ion from each form of welfare state was identified as having an approach towards immigration that could be seen as potentially health threatening. Objectives: •To provide a comparative view on immigration/integration policies in relation to outcomes on eq uity in terms of socioeconomic status and health. •To provide insights about the health immigrant effect and how public policy may impede/support it •To discuss the typology of Esping - Andersen and its application to the topic of immigration experience, hea lth and public policy. Results: We aim at providing a more comprehensive and comparable landscape on the relation of immigration policies and observable effects on socioeconomic/health status of immigrant populations. It aims at providing some guidelines for public policy to address these issues. - Introduction: public policy, health status & welfare state - From Canada to Australia: how welfare state interact with immigration policy? - Supporting public policy: what are the guidelines ? - Open discussion base d on critical thinking questions Message: The workshop identifies key guidelines for supporting public policy in health and immigration.Interaction between public policy,lived experiences,health outcomes and immigration support the health in all - in - polici es approach.

Background In Europe, progress in the development of health policies that address the needs of migrants and ethnic minorities has been slow. This is partly due to the absence of a strategic commitment by the health authorities. The Ministry of Public Health commissioned the ETHEALTH (EThnicity & HEALTH) group to formulate relevant recommendations to the public authorities with a view to reducing health inequalities among ethnic minorities. This paper describes the political process and the outcomes of the ETHEALTH expert group. Results After ten meetings, the ETHEALTH group came up with 46 recommendations, which were presented at a national press conference in December 2011. Target groups concerned by these recommendations covered both irregular migrants and migrants entitled to the national insurance coverage. Recommendations were supported by the need of combining universal approaches to health care with more specific approaches. The scope of the recommendations concerned health care as well as prevention, health promotion and access to health care. When analysing the content of the recommendations, some ETHEALTH recommendations were not fully measurable, and time-related; they were, however, quite specific and realistic within the Belgian context. The weak political commitment of an executive agency was identified as a major obstacle to the implementation of the recommendations. Conclusions The ETHEALTH group was an example of scientific advice on a global health issue. It also demonstrated the feasibility of coming up with a comprehensive strategy to decrease ethnic health inequalities, even in a political context where migration issues are sensitive. Two final lessons may be highlighted at the end of the first phase of the ETHEALTH project: firstly, the combination of scientific knowledge and practical expertise makes recommendations SMART; and, secondly, the low level of commitment on the part of policymakers might jeopardise the effective implementation of the recommendations.

Background In Europe, progress in the development of health policies that address the needs of migrants and ethnic minorities has been slow. This is partly due to the absence of a strategic commitment by the health authorities. The Ministry of Public Health commissioned the ETHEALTH (EThnicity & HEALTH) group to formulate relevant recommendations to the public authorities with a view to reducing health inequalities among ethnic minorities. This paper describes the political process and the outcomes of the ETHEALTH expert group. Results After ten meetings, the ETHEALTH group came up with 46 recommendations, which were presented at a national press conference in December 2011. Target groups concerned by these recommendations covered both irregular migrants and migrants entitled to the national insurance coverage. Recommendations were supported by the need of combining universal approaches to health care with more specific approaches. The scope of the recommendations concerned health care as well as prevention, health promotion and access to health care. When analysing the content of the recommendations, some ETHEALTH recommendations were not fully measurable, and time-related; they were, however, quite specific and realistic within the Belgian context. The weak political commitment of an executive agency was identified as a major obstacle to the implementation of the recommendations. Conclusions The ETHEALTH group was an example of scientific advice on a global health issue. It also demonstrated the feasibility of coming up with a comprehensive strategy to decrease ethnic health inequalities, even in a political context where migration issues are sensitive. Two final lessons may be highlighted at the end of the first phase of the ETHEALTH project: firstly, the combination of scientific knowledge and practical expertise makes recommendations SMART; and, secondly, the low level of commitment on the part of policymakers might jeopardise the effective implementation of the recommendations.

Background: Preventive health services (PHSs) form part of primary healthcare with the aim of screening to prevent disease. Migrants show significant differences in lifestyle, health beliefs and risk factors compared with the native populations. This can have a significant impact on migrants' access to health systems and participation in prevention programmes. Even in countries with widely accessible healthcare systems, migrants' access to PHSs may be difficult. The aim of the study was to compare access to preventive health services between migrants and native populations in five European Union (EU) countries. Methods: Information from Health Interview Surveys of Belgium, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain were used to analyse access to mammography, Pap smear tests, colorectal cancer screening and flu vaccination among migrants. The comparative risk of not accessing PHSs was calculated using a mixed-effects multilevel model, adjusting for potential confounding factors (sex, education and the presence of disability). Migrant status was defined according to citizenship, with a distinction made between EU and non-EU countries. Results: Migrants, in particular those from non-EU countries, were found to have poorer access to PHSs. The overall risk of not reporting a screening test or a flu vaccination ranged from a minimum of 1.8 times (colorectal cancer screening), to a high of 4.4 times (flu vaccination) for migrants. The comparison among the five EU countries included in the study showed similarities, with particularly limited access recorded in Italy and in Belgium for non-EU migrants. Conclusions: The findings of this study are in accordance with evidence from the scientific literature. Poor organization of health services, in Italy, and lack of targeted health policies in Belgium may explain these findings. PHSs should be responsive to patient diversity, probably more so than other health services. There is a need for diversity-oriented, migrant-sensitive prevention. Policies oriented to removing impediments to migrants' access to preventive interventions are crucial, to encourage more positive action for those facing the risk of intersectional discrimination. ; peer-reviewed

Background: Preventive health services (PHSs) form part of primary healthcare with the aim of screening to prevent disease. Migrants show significant differences in lifestyle, health beliefs and risk factors compared with the native populations. This can have a significant impact on migrants' access to health systems and participation in prevention programmes. Even in countries with widely accessible healthcare systems, migrants' access to PHSs may be difficult. The aim of the study was to compare access to preventive health services between migrants and native populations in five European Union (EU) countries. Methods: Information from Health Interview Surveys of Belgium, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain were used to analyse access to mammography, Pap smear tests, colorectal cancer screening and flu vaccination among migrants. The comparative risk of not accessing PHSs was calculated using a mixed-effects multilevel model, adjusting for potential confounding factors (sex, education and the presence of disability). Migrant status was defined according to citizenship, with a distinction made between EU and non-EU countries. Results: Migrants, in particular those from non-EU countries, were found to have poorer access to PHSs. The overall risk of not reporting a screening test or a flu vaccination ranged from a minimum of 1.8 times (colorectal cancer screening), to a high of 4.4 times (flu vaccination) for migrants. The comparison among the five EU countries included in the study showed similarities, with particularly limited access recorded in Italy and in Belgium for non- EU migrants. Conclusions: The findings of this study are in accordance with evidence from the scientific literature. Poor organization of health services, in Italy, and lack of targeted health policies in Belgium may explain these findings. PHSs should be responsive to patient diversity, probably more so than other health services. There is a need for diversity-oriented, migrant-sensitive prevention. Policies oriented to removing impediments to migrants' access to preventive interventions are crucial, to encourage more positive action for those facing the risk of intersectional discrimination.

Background: Preventive health services (PHSs) form part of primary healthcare with the aim of screening to prevent disease. Migrants show significant differences in lifestyle, health beliefs and risk factors compared with the native populations. This can have a significant impact on migrants' access to health systems and participation in prevention programmes. Even in countries with widely accessible healthcare systems, migrants' access to PHSs may be difficult. The aim of the study was to compare access to preventive health services between migrants and native populations in five European Union (EU) countries. Methods: Information from Health Interview Surveys of Belgium, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain were used to analyse access to mammography, Pap smear tests, colorectal cancer screening and flu vaccination among migrants. The comparative risk of not accessing PHSs was calculated using a mixed-effects multilevel model, adjusting for potential confounding factors (sex, education and the presence of disability). Migrant status was defined according to citizenship, with a distinction made between EU and non-EU countries. Results: Migrants, in particular those from non-EU countries, were found to have poorer access to PHSs. The overall risk of not reporting a screening test or a flu vaccination ranged from a minimum of 1.8 times (colorectal cancer screening), to a high of 4.4 times (flu vaccination) for migrants. The comparison among the five EU countries included in the study showed similarities, with particularly limited access recorded in Italy and in Belgium for non- EU migrants. Conclusions: The findings of this study are in accordance with evidence from the scientific literature. Poor organization of health services, in Italy, and lack of targeted health policies in Belgium may explain these findings. PHSs should be responsive to patient diversity, probably more so than other health services. There is a need for diversity-oriented, migrant-sensitive prevention. Policies oriented to removing impediments to migrants' access to preventive interventions are crucial, to encourage more positive action for those facing the risk of intersectional discrimination.

Background: Preventive health services (PHSs) form part of primary healthcare with the aim of screening to prevent disease. Migrants show significant differences in lifestyle, health beliefs and risk factors compared with the native populations. This can have a significant impact on migrants' access to health systems and participation in prevention programmes. Even in countries with widely accessible healthcare systems, migrants' access to PHSs may be difficult. The aim of the study was to compare access to preventive health services between migrants and native populations in five European Union (EU) countries. Methods: Information from Health Interview Surveys of Belgium, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain were used to analyse access to mammography, Pap smear tests, colorectal cancer screening and flu vaccination among migrants. The comparative risk of not accessing PHSs was calculated using a mixed-effects multilevel model, adjusting for potential confounding factors (sex, education and the presence of disability). Migrant status was defined according to citizenship, with a distinction made between EU and non-EU countries. Results: Migrants, in particular those from non-EU countries, were found to have poorer access to PHSs. The overall risk of not reporting a screening test or a flu vaccination ranged from a minimum of 1.8 times (colorectal cancer screening), to a high of 4.4 times (flu vaccination) for migrants. The comparison among the five EU countries included in the study showed similarities, with particularly limited access recorded in Italy and in Belgium for non-EU migrants. Conclusions: The findings of this study are in accordance with evidence from the scientific literature. Poor organization of health services, in Italy, and lack of targeted health policies in Belgium may explain these findings. PHSs should be responsive to patient diversity, probably more so than other health services. There is a need for diversity-oriented, migrant-sensitive prevention. Policies oriented to removing impediments to migrants' access to preventive interventions are crucial, to encourage more positive action for those facing the risk of intersectional discrimination. ; publishersversion ; published

Background: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. Methods: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. Results: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e. g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e. g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. Conclusions: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.

BACKGROUND: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. METHODS: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. RESULTS: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e.g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e.g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.

BACKGROUND: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. METHODS: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. RESULTS: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e.g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e.g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.

BACKGROUND: Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries. RESULTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n =240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this. CONCLUSIONS: The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.

BACKGROUND: Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries. RESULTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n =240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this. CONCLUSIONS: The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.