Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The Great Recession, starting in 2008, was characterized by an overall reduction in living standards. This pushed several governments across Europe to restrict expenditures, also in the area of healthcare. These austerity measures are known to have affected access to healthcare, probably unevenly among social groups. This study examines the unequal effects of retrenchment in healthcare expenditures on access to medical care for different income groups across European countries. METHOD: Using data of two waves (2008 and 2014) of the European Union Statistics of Income and Living Conditions survey (EU-SILC), a difference-in-differences (DD) approach was used to analyse the overall change in unmet medical needs over time within and between countries. By adding another interaction, the differences in the effects between income quintiles (difference-in-difference-in-differences: DDD) were estimated. To do so, comparisons between two pairs of a treatment and a control case were made: Iceland versus Sweden, and Ireland versus the United Kingdom. These comparisons are made between countries with recessions equal in magnitude, but with different levels of healthcare cuts. This strategy allows isolating the effect of cuts, net of the severity of the recession. RESULTS: The DD-estimates show a higher increase of unmet medical needs during the Great Recession in the treatment cases (Iceland vs. Sweden: + 3.24 pp.; Ireland vs. the United Kingdom: + 1.15 pp). The DDD-estimates show different results over the two models. In Iceland, the lowest income groups had a higher increase in unmet medical needs. This was not the case in Ireland, where middle-class groups saw their access to healthcare deteriorate more. CONCLUSION: Restrictions on health expenditures during the Great Recession caused an increase in self-reported unmet medical needs. The burden of these effects is not equally distributed; in some cases, the lower-income groups suffer most. The case of Ireland, nevertheless, shows that certain policy measures ...

Background: The Great Recession, starting in 2008, was characterized by an overall reduction in living standards. This pushed several governments across Europe to restrict expenditures, also in the area of healthcare. These austerity measures are known to have affected access to healthcare, probably unevenly among social groups. This study examines the unequal effects of retrenchment in healthcare expenditures on access to medical care for different income groups across European countries. Method: Using data of two waves (2008 and 2014) of the European Union Statistics of Income and Living Conditions survey (EU-SILC), a difference-in-differences (DD) approach was used to analyse the overall change in unmet medical needs over time within and between countries. By adding another interaction, the differences in the effects between income quintiles (difference-in-difference-in-differences: DDD) were estimated. To do so, comparisons between two pairs of a treatment and a control case were made: Iceland versus Sweden, and Ireland versus the United Kingdom. These comparisons are made between countries with recessions equal in magnitude, but with different levels of healthcare cuts. This strategy allows isolating the effect of cuts, net of the severity of the recession. Results: The DD-estimates show a higher increase of unmet medical needs during the Great Recession in the treatment cases (Iceland vs. Sweden: + 3.24 pp.; Ireland vs. the United Kingdom: + 1.15 pp). The DDD-estimates show different results over the two models. In Iceland, the lowest income groups had a higher increase in unmet medical needs. This was not the case in Ireland, where middle-class groups saw their access to healthcare deteriorate more. Conclusion: Restrictions on health expenditures during the Great Recession caused an increase in self-reported unmet medical needs. The burden of these effects is not equally distributed; in some cases, the lower-income groups suffer most. The case of Ireland, nevertheless, shows that certain policy measures may relatively spare lower-income groups while affecting middle-class income groups more. These results bring in evidence that policies can reduce and even overshoot the general effect of income inequalities on access to healthcare.

Background: The Great Recession, starting in 2008, was characterized by an overall reduction in living standards. This pushed several governments across Europe to restrict expenditures, also in the area of healthcare. These austerity measures are known to have affected access to healthcare, probably unevenly among social groups. This study examines the unequal effects of retrenchment in healthcare expenditures on access to medical care for different income groups across European countries. Method: Using data of two waves (2008 and 2014) of the European Union Statistics of Income and Living Conditions survey (EU-SILC), a difference-in-differences (DD) approach was used to analyse the overall change in unmet medical needs over time within and between countries. By adding another interaction, the differences in the effects between income quintiles (difference-in-difference-in-differences: DDD) were estimated. To do so, comparisons between two pairs of a treatment and a control case were made: Iceland versus Sweden, and Ireland versus the United Kingdom. These comparisons are made between countries with recessions equal in magnitude, but with different levels of healthcare cuts. This strategy allows isolating the effect of cuts, net of the severity of the recession. Results: The DD-estimates show a higher increase of unmet medical needs during the Great Recession in the treatment cases (Iceland vs. Sweden: + 3.24 pp.; Ireland vs. the United Kingdom: + 1.15 pp). The DDD-estimates show different results over the two models. In Iceland, the lowest income groups had a higher increase in unmet medical needs. This was not the case in Ireland, where middle-class groups saw their access to healthcare deteriorate more. Conclusion: Restrictions on health expenditures during the Great Recession caused an increase in self-reported unmet medical needs. The burden of these effects is not equally distributed; in some cases, the lower-income groups suffer most. The case of Ireland, nevertheless, shows that certain policy measures may relatively spare lower-income groups while affecting middle-class income groups more. These results bring in evidence that policies can reduce and even overshoot the general effect of income inequalities on access to healthcare.

Part 1. Introduction and General Findings. Introduction -- Community sport and social inclusion: Necessary and sufficient conditions -- Part 2. Thematic Insights into Community Sport and Social Inclusion. Reflective practices in a volunteer community sport coach training programme -- Health promotion in the context of community sport: Illustration of a theory informed approach to programme development and evaluation -- Facilitating conditions for establishing social cohesion through structural approaches in community sport -- Part 3. Broader Perspectives on Community Sport and Social Inclusion. The evolution of evaluation: From the black box to programme theory -- Realist inquiry and action research -- Problematizing the concept of social inclusion through sport: Opportunities and challenges through the lens of aspirations and capabilities -- Part 4. General Reflections. General reflections.

Background
Little is known about how knowledge brokers (KBs) operate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to translate evidence for health policy and practice. These intermediaries facilitate relationships between evidence producers and users to address public health issues.


Aims and objectives
To increase understanding, a mixed-methods study collected data from KBs who had acted on evidence from the 2015 Global Maternal Newborn Health Conference in Mexico.


Methods
Of the 1000 in-person participants, 252 plus 72 online participants (n=324) from 56 countries completed an online survey, and 20 participants from 15 countries were interviewed. Thematic analysis and application of knowledge translation (KT) theory explored factors influencing KB actions leading to evidence uptake. Descriptive statistics of respondent characteristics were used for cross-case comparison.


Findings
Results suggest factors supporting the KB role in evidence uptake, which include active relationships with evidence users through embedded KB roles, targeted and tailored evidence communication to fit the context, user receptiveness to evidence from a similar country setting, adaptability in the KB role, and action orientation of KBs.


Discussion and conclusions
Initiatives to increase evidence uptake in LMICs should work to establish supportive structures for embedded KT, identify processes for ongoing cross-country learning, and strengthen KBs already showing effectiveness in their roles.

Available evidence has suggested that strong primary care (PC) systems are associated with better outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether PC strength is specifically related to the prevalence of patients' financially driven postponement of general practitioner (GP) care. Therefore, data from a cross-sectional multicountry study in 33 countries among GPs and their patients were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression modelling. According to the results, the variation between countries in the levels of patients' postponement of seeking GP care for financial reasons was large. More than one third of these cross-country differences could be explained by characteristics of the health care system and the GP practices. In particular, PC systems with good accessibility and those systems that offer comprehensive care were associated with lower levels of financially driven delay. Consequently, we can conclude that well-organized PC systems can compensate for the negative influence of individual characteristics (socioeconomic position) on the care-seeking behaviors of patients.

Abstract Background In order to address the challenges of an ageing population the Belgian government decided to allocate resources to the creation of geriatric day hospitals (GDHs). Although GDHs are meant to be a strategy to support general practitioners (GPs) caring for the frail elderly, few Belgian GPs seem to refer to a GDH. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitating factors of GPs' referral to GDHs. Methods A qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted. Fifteen FGDs were organized in the different Belgian regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels). Results Contextual factors such as the unsatisfactory cooperation between hospital and GPs and organizational barriers such as the lack of communication on referral procedures between hospital and primary health care (PHC) were identified. Lack of basic knowledge about the concept or the local organization of GDH seemed to be a problem. Unclear task descriptions, responsibilities and activities of a GDH formed prominent points of discussion in all FGDs. Nevertheless a lot of possible advantages and disadvantages of GDHs for the patient and for the GP were mentioned. Conclusions In the case of poor referral to GDHs, focusing on improving overall collaboration between primary and secondary health care is essential. This can be achieved by actively delivering adequate information, permanent communication and more involvement of PHC in the organization and functioning of GDHs. The absence of a transparent health care system with delineated role definitions, seems to hinder the integration of new initiatives like GDHs in the care process. Strategies to enhance referral to GDHs should use a comprehensive approach.

BACKGROUND: In order to address the challenges of an ageing population the Belgian government decided to allocate resources to the creation of geriatric day hospitals (GDHs). Although GDHs are meant to be a strategy to support general practitioners (GPs) caring for the frail elderly, few Belgian GPs seem to refer to a GDH. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitating factors of GPs' referral to GDHs. METHODS: A qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted. Fifteen FGDs were organized in the different Belgian regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels). RESULTS: Contextual factors such as the unsatisfactory cooperation between hospital and GPs and organizational barriers such as the lack of communication on referral procedures between hospital and primary health care (PHC) were identified. Lack of basic knowledge about the concept or the local organization of GDH seemed to be a problem. Unclear task descriptions, responsibilities and activities of a GDH formed prominent points of discussion in all FGDs. Nevertheless a lot of possible advantages and disadvantages of GDHs for the patient and for the GP were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of poor referral to GDHs, focusing on improving overall collaboration between primary and secondary health care is essential. This can be achieved by actively delivering adequate information, permanent communication and more involvement of PHC in the organization and functioning of GDHs. The absence of a transparent health care system with delineated role definitions, seems to hinder the integration of new initiatives like GDHs in the care process. Strategies to enhance referral to GDHs should use a comprehensive approach. ; Peer reviewed

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from -2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice- and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians.

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from -2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice- and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians.

The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China, Brazil, Thailand, Sub Saharan Africa, Nicaragua, Armenia, India, Guatemala, United States of America (USA), Israel, Australia, Colombia, and Belgium. This compilation is by no-means representative or all inclusive, and we encourage researchers to continue advancing global knowledge on COVID-19 health equity related issues, through rigorous research and generation of a strong evidence base of new empirical studies in this field.

The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China, Brazil, Thailand, Sub Saharan Africa, Nicaragua, Armenia, India, Guatemala, United States of America (USA), Israel, Australia, Colombia, and Belgium. This compilation is by no-means representative or all inclusive, and we encourage researchers to continue advancing global knowledge on COVID-19 health equity related issues, through rigorous research and generation of a strong evidence base of new empirical studies in this field.