Suchergebnisse

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to investigate chronicity (frequency) in different abuse types (e.g. psychological) and overall abuse (all abuse types) by severity (minor, severe, total) in seven European cities, and scrutinize factors associated with high chronicity levels (frequency on the median and higher) in psychological and overall abuse by severity.


Design/methodology/approach
– The study design was cross-sectional. The sample consisted of 4,467 randomly selected women/men (2,559 women) aged 60-84 years from seven European cities, and data were analysed with bivariate and multivariate methods.


Findings
– Chronicity varied across country and by abuse type. For instance, Germany had the highest chronicity means in physical and sexual abuse; Greece in physical, injury, sexual and overall abuse; Lithuania in physical, injury, financial and overall abuse; Portugal in physical abuse; Spain in physical, sexual and financial abuse; and Sweden in psychological, injury, financial and overall abuse. In general, Italy had the lowest chronicity means. The main perpetrators were people close to the respondents and women (in some cases).


Research limitations/implications
– The independent relationship (regressions) between chronicity/severity of abuse, country and other variables (e.g. depression) was examined only for psychological and overall abuse. More research into this issue with other types of abuse (e.g. sexual) is warranted.


Originality/value
– The paper reports data from the ABUEL survey, which gathered population-based data on elderly abuse.

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to investigate chronicity (frequency) in different abuse types (e.g. psychological) and overall abuse (all abuse types) by severity (minor, severe, total) in seven European cities, and scrutinize factors associated with high chronicity levels (frequency on the median and higher) in psychological and overall abuse by severity. Design/methodology/approach -- The study design was cross-sectional. The sample consisted of 4,467 randomly selected women/men (2,559 women) aged 60-84 years from seven European cities, and data were analysed with bivariate and multivariate methods. Findings -- Chronicity varied across country and by abuse type. For instance, Germany had the highest chronicity means in physical and sexual abuse; Greece in physical, injury, sexual and overall abuse; Lithuania in physical, injury, financial and overall abuse; Portugal in physical abuse; Spain in physical, sexual and financial abuse; and Sweden in psychological, injury, financial and overall abuse. In general, Italy had the lowest chronicity means. The main perpetrators were people close to the respondents and women (in some cases). Research limitations/implications -- The independent relationship (regressions) between chronicity/severity of abuse, country and other variables (e.g. depression) was examined only for psychological and overall abuse. More research into this issue with other types of abuse (e.g. sexual) is warranted. Originality/value -- The paper reports data from the ABUEL survey, which gathered population-based data on elderly abuse. Adapted from the source document.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine differences in the experience of somatic symptoms by domain (exhaustion, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, heart distress) between psychologically abused and non-abused older persons, and to scrutinize associations between abuse and somatic symptoms while considering other factors (e.g. social support).Design/methodology/approach– The design was cross-sectional. The participants were 4,467 women/men aged 60-84 years living in seven European cities. The data were analysed using bivariate/multivariate methods.Findings– Psychologically abused participants scored higher on all somatic symptom domains than non-abused, and thus were more affected by the symptoms. The regressions confirmed a positive association between psychological abuse and most somatic symptom domains, but other factors (e.g. depression, anxiety) were more salient. Demographics/socio-economics were positively (e.g. marriage/cohabitation) or negatively (e.g. education) associated with somatic symptoms depending on the domain. Social support and family structure "protected" the experience of somatic symptoms.Research limitations/implications– The research focused on psychological abuse. It did not incorporate other abuse types calling for further research on the effects of other abuse types on somatic symptoms. Nevertheless, the findings indicate that psychological abuse is linked to somatic symptoms, but the role of other factors (e.g. depression, anxiety, social support) is also important.Practical implications– Improvements in the older person's situation regarding somatic symptoms need to consider psychological abuse, co-morbidities, social support and living conditions.Originality/value– The paper reports data from the ABUEL Survey, which collected population-based data on elder abuse.

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.

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.