Suchergebnisse

Walter Devillé gaat tijdens zijn oratie in op de migrant als klant in de gezondheidszorg. Er zijn volgens hem ongewenste verschillen tussen allochtonen en autochtone Nederlanders in gezondheid en in gebruik van de gezondheidszorg. Signalen wijzen erop dat de kwaliteit en aansluiting van zorg en preventie voor migranten voor verbetering vatbaar zijn. De marktwerking in de gezondheidszorg moet leiden tot een sterkere positie van de patiënt als klant, dus ook van de migrant als klant. Kwaliteitsinstrumenten en interventies ter verbetering van de gezondheid en zorg dienen ook voor migranten effect

Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE), building on previous European collaborative projects, was developed to assess national uptake and impacts of European public health innovations, to describe national public health research programmes, strategies and structures and to develop participation of researchers through the organizational structures of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA). This article describes the methods used. ; PHIRE was undertaken with the support of the Governing Council of EUPHA. We thank the EUPHA section presidents and country informants, and national public health associations, country experts and officials who gave their time and ...

The Outline for a Cultural Formulation (OCF) has remained underutilized in clinical practice since its publication in the DSM-IV in 1994. In the Netherlands, a Cultural Interview (CI) was developed in 2002 as a tool to facilitate use of the OCF in clinical practice. The time needed to conduct the interview, however, prevented its systematic implementation within mental health institutions. This article presents the development of a shortened and adapted version, the Brief Cultural Interview (BCI), and a pilot study on the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of its implementation with refugee and asylum seeking patients in a Dutch centre for transcultural psychiatry. Results show that the brief version scores better on feasibility and acceptability, while utility for clinical practice remains similar to that of the original CI. These results support the systematic use of the OCF in psychiatric care for a culturally diverse patient population through the application of a relatively brief cultural interview. A secondary finding of the study is that patients' cultural identity was considered by clinicians to be more relevant in the treatment planning sessions than their illness explanations.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, the attention for health literacy has increased in the European Union. This is due to three main reasons. First, reviews have shown that inadequate health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes, higher health care use and expenditure. Second, in all European countries the population is aging and the number of chronically ill people is rising. Improving health literacy in this group can offer greater opportunities to take an active part in society, be independent and improve quality of life. Third, since most research on health literacy has been conducted outside Europe and relatively little is known about the development of health literacy interventions and its effects on outcome measures in European countries. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the European Union published between 1995 and 2018. METHODS: Searches have been performed in Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and SCOPUS for publications on health literacy intervention studies in European Union countries. Studies were included if the research was conducted in one or more Member States of the European Union, the publication described an intervention study, the intervention was aimed at health literacy, the publication described an outcome measure related to health literacy and the publication was written in English, French or German. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included. Three types of interventions were identified; aimed at improving health literacy, tailored to different health literacy levels and aimed at improving health outcomes in general that differentiated in effects for people with different health literacy levels. Most interventions identified in the review focus on the functional level of health literacy or numeracy. The strength of evidence from the European health literacy intervention studies was low and there was a huge heterogeneity in study design, measurement tools and outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions were tailored to the needs of patients, addressing functional, interactive and critical skills and use not difficult animated spoken text. Future research should focus on the development and assessment of such interventions and use stronger designs.

Background: Health and social services provided at home are becoming increasingly important. Hence, there is a need for information on home care in Europe. The objective of this literature review was to respond to this need, by systematically describing what has been reported on home care in Europe in the scientific literature over the past decade. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for papers on home care published in English, using the following data bases: Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Social Care Online. Studies were only included if they complied with the definition of home care, were published between January 1998 and October 2009, and dealt with at least one of the 31 specified countries. Clinical interventions, instrument developments, local projects and reviews were excluded. The data extracted included: the characteristics of the study and aspects of home care 'policy & regulation', 'financing', 'organisation & service delivery', and 'clients & informal carers'. Results: Seventy-four out of 5,133 potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, providing information on 18 countries. Many focused on the characteristics of home care recipients and on the organisation of home care. Geographical inequalities, market forces, quality and integration of services were also among the issues frequently discussed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that home care systems appeared to differ not just between but also within countries. The papers included, however, provided only a limited picture of home care. Many studies only focused on one aspect of the home care system and international comparative studies were rare. Furthermore, little information emerged on home care financing and on home care in general in Eastern Europe. This review clearly shows the need for more scientific publications on home care, especially papers comparing countries. A comprehensive and more complete insight into the state of home care in Europe requires gathering of information using a uniform framework and methodology. ; This is an open access journal and the full article is available: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-207

Background: Health and social services provided at home are becoming increasingly important. Hence, there is a need for information on home care in Europe. The objective of this literature review was to respond to this need, by systematically describing what has been reported on home care in Europe in the scientific literature over the past decade. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for papers on home care published in English, using the following data bases: Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Social Care Online. Studies were only included if they complied with the definition of home care, were published between January 1998 and October 2009, and dealt with at least one of the 31 specified countries. Clinical interventions, instrument developments, local projects and reviews were excluded. The data extracted included: the characteristics of the study and aspects of home care 'policy & regulation', 'financing', 'organisation & service delivery', and 'clients & informal carers'. Results: Seventy-four out of 5,133 potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, providing information on 18 countries. Many focused on the characteristics of home care recipients and on the organisation of home care. Geographical inequalities, market forces, quality and integration of services were also among the issues frequently discussed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that home care systems appeared to differ not just between but also within countries. The papers included, however, provided only a limited picture of home care. Many studies only focused on one aspect of the home care system and international comparative studies were rare. Furthermore, little information emerged on home care financing and on home care in general in Eastern Europe. This review clearly shows the need for more scientific publications on home care, especially papers comparing countries. A comprehensive and more complete insight into the ...

Background: The European Public Health Association (EUPHA) proposed and led PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), with co-financing by the European Commission, to assess public health innovation and research at national level in Europe. PHIRE was also designed to promote organizational development and capacity building of EUPHA. We assess the success and limitations of using EUPHA's participative structures. Methods: In total, 30 European countries were included—27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. EUPHA thematic section presidents were asked to identify country informants to report, through a web-based questionnaire, on eight public health innovations. National public health associations (EUPHA member organizations) were requested to identify their national public health research programmes and calls, review the health research system, coordinate a stakeholder workshop and provide a national report. The section and national reports were assessed for responses and completeness. Results: Half of the final responding CIs were members of EUPHA sections and the other half gained from other sources. Experts declined to respond for reasons including lack of time, knowledge of the innovation or funding. National public health associations held PHIRE workshops with Ministries of Health in 14 countries; information for 10 countries was gained through discussions within the national association, or country visits by PHIRE partners. Six countries provided no response. Some national associations had too weak organizational structures for the work or insufficient financial resources or criticism of the project. Conclusion: EUPHA is the leading civil society organization giving support to public health research in Europe. PHIRE created new knowledge and supported organizational development. EUPHA sections gained expert reports on public health innovations in European countries and national public health associations reported on national public health research systems. Significant advances could ...

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.

Abstract 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.