Search

Background: Within the European Union (EU), substantial efforts are being made to achieve economic and social cohesion, and the reduction of health inequalities between EU regions is integral to this process. This paper is the first to examine how self-reported conditions and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) vary spatially between and within countries. Methods: Using 2014 European Social Survey (ESS) data from 20 countries, this paper examines how regional inequalities in self-reported conditions and NCDs vary for men and women in 174 regions (levels 1 and 2 Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units, 'NUTS'). We document absolute and relative inequalities across Europe in the prevalence of eight conditions: general health, overweight/obesity, mental health, heart or circulation problems, high blood pressure, back, neck, muscular or joint pain, diabetes and cancer. Results: There is considerable inequality in self-reported conditions and NCDs between the regions of Europe, with rates highest in the regions of continental Europe, some Scandinavian regions and parts of the UK and lowest around regions bordering the Alps, in Ireland and France. However, for mental health and cancer, rates are highest in regions of Eastern European and lowest in some Nordic regions, Ireland and isolated regions in continental Europe. There are also widespread and consistent absolute and relative regional inequalities in all conditions within countries. These are largest in France, Germany and the UK, and smallest in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. There were higher inequalities amongst women. Conclusion: Using newly available harmonized morbidity data from across Europe, this paper shows that there are considerable regional inequalities within and between European countries in the distribution of self-reported conditions and NCDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The contemporary environment is a complex of interactions between physical, biological, socio-economic systems with major impacts on public health. However, gaps in our understanding of the causes, extent and distribution of these effects remain. The public health community in Sandwell West Midlands has collaborated to successfully develop, pilot and establish the first Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) programme in Europe to address this 'environmental health gap' through systematically linking data on environmental hazards, exposures and diseases. Methods Existing networks of environmental, health and regulatory agencies developed a suite of innovative methods to routinely share, integrate and analyse data on hazards, exposures and health outcomes to inform interventions. Results Effective data sharing and horizon scanning systems have been established, novel statistical methods piloted, plausible associations framed and tested, and targeted interventions informed by local concerns applied. These have influenced changes in public health practice. Conclusion EPHT is a powerful tool for identifying and addressing the key environmental public health impacts at a local level. Sandwell's experience demonstrates that it can be established and operated at virtually no cost. The transfer of National Health Service epidemiological skills to local authorities in 2013 provides an opportunity to expand the programme to fully exploit its potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the ban on misleading descriptors such as light or mild cigarettes in Europe, there are still widespread misperceptions of the relative harmfulness of different brands of cigarettes among smokers. This study examined the extent to which smokers in three European countries believed that some cigarette brands are less harmful and why, using data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Europe surveys. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses were completed among nationally representative samples of 4,956 current smokers (aged ≥ 18) from Germany (n = 1,515), France (n = 1,735) and the United Kingdom (n = 1,706) conducted between September 2006 and November 2007. Logistic regression models examined whether outcomes, including beliefs that some cigarettes could be less harmful than others, varied by socio-demographic and country of residence. Findings: Around a quarter of smokers in the UK and France, and a third in Germany believed some cigarettes are less harmful than others. Overall, of smokers who falsely believed that some cigarettes are less harmful, 86.3% thought that tar/nicotine yields, 48.7% taste, and 40.4% terms on packs such as ‘smooth’ or ‘ultra’ indicated less harmful brands. About a fifth of smokers across all countries chose their brand based on health reasons, and a similar proportion gave tar yields as a reason for choosing brands. Conclusions: Our research suggests that the current European Tobacco Products Directive is inadequate in eliminating misperceptions about the relative risk of brand descriptors on cigarettes. There is therefore an urgent need to protect smokers in Europe from these misperceptions via stronger measures such as plain packaging regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]