Search

• Value system of a society is often shaped by its constitution, affecting how society perceives family. • Modern constitutional provisions on family implicitly lean towards traditional family forms. • The notion of Family Support is rarely expressly mentioned in constitutions of European countries. • Family Support is seen as a part of supervision authority or general duty of states to assist families. • More inclusive constitutional provisions with a constructive, rights-based approach are needed. This paper aims to explore the extent in which contemporary constitutional concepts of the family influence the recognition of the importance and the implementation of family support in European context. The authors start from the premise that constitutions lay the foundation for national legislation and policy, at the same time indicating a state's recognition of internationally agreed standards in a given field. Considering family support as a human right, the authors reflect on the meaning of constitutional protection vis a vis policies and practices of providing support to children and families and look into family related constitutional provisions of various European countries. Building upon the work of the European Family Support Network – COST Action 18123, the key elements of constitutional protection of families are identified, having a direct effect on the conceptualization and delivery of family support. In conclusion, considering the place and significance afforded to family support in national constitutions, the paper offers a classification of constitutions in that respect and evaluates the implications of constitutional regulation on family support policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health policies are important instruments for improving population health. However, experience suggests that policies designed for the whole population do not always benefit the most vulnerable. Participation of vulnerable groups in the policy-making process provides an opportunity for them to influence decisions related to their health, and also to exercise their rights. This paper presents the findings from a study that explored how vulnerable groups and principles of human rights are incorporated into national sexual and reproductive health (SRH) policies of 4 selected countries (Spain, Scotland, Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine). It also aimed at discussing the involvement of vulnerable groups in SRH policy development from the perspective of policy-makers. Methods: Literature review, health policy analysis and 5 semi-structured interviews with policy-makers were carried out in this study. Content analysis of SRH policies was performed using the EquiFrame analytical framework. Results: The study revealed that vulnerable groups and core principles of human rights are differently addressed in SRH policies within 4 studied countries. The opinions of policy-makers on the importance of mentioning vulnerable groups in policy documents and the way they ought to be mentioned varied, but they agreed that a clear definition of vulnerability, practical examples, and evidences on health status of these groups have to be included. In addition, different approaches to vulnerable group' s involvement in policy development were identified during the interviews and the range of obstacles to this process was discussed by respondents. Conclusion: Incorporation of vulnerable groups in the SRH policies and their involvement in policy development were found to be important in addressing SRH of these groups and providing an opportunity for them to advocate for equal access to healthcare and exercise their rights. Future research on this topic should include representatives of vulnerable communities which could help to build a dialogue and present the problem from multiple perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The persistence of health inequalities means that many public health professionals face an ongoing task to develop and update policies to tackle them. However, although the inequalities might be unchanged, the political priorities in the many policy areas involved are changing and the ambition to reduce the health divide is constantly facing strong forces pushing in the opposite direction. Recent proposals to re-think health inequalities need to be treated with caution because they are disconnected from what is needed for policy-making in this area. From our experience of 35 years in developing strategies to tackle health inequalities, we still see many entry points with space for local and national improvements, but it is crucial to ask the right questions. The aim of this Commentary is to present a new framework of eight questions that might provide a helpful structure for the necessary dialogue between researchers and policy-makers. Even if answers are not yet available for all of them, we believe that discussing them for a specific population in a specific political context will be fruitful to inform policy on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Limited access to healthcare for vulnerable immigrant children in Europe and North America is increasingly worrisome as immigration policies harden. This paper analyzes the gap between States'' obligations under international human rights law and the disparate local implementations in diverse countries. Studies that are both multidisciplinary and incorporate micro and macro level indicators are needed to reveal discrepancies between entitlements and access. It is argued that the lack of available data on the magnitude of the problem and on its individual and public health consequences stems from the conflicting situation faced by health institutions required to simultaneously protect the best interest of each child and allocate limited resources. Collaboration in research is urgently needed to assist policy-makers and institutions make informed decisions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]