Search

Due to a significant increase in the complexity of the care demands of older people having multiple care needs, the necessity for integrated care is increasingly acknowledged. Proposing a qualitative approach based on a secondary literature analysis and an empirical survey, this paper explores the integration policy of health and social care for older people having complex needs in two European countries – France and Sweden – where various policy measures aiming at developing and delivering integrated care can be identified: at the national level, through the supportive measures of organisational, institutional and/or professional integration from central government, and at the local level, with the implementation of concrete integrative initiatives. Using a comparative qualitative approach, the authors investigate both of these levels, as well as the interplay between them. They show the importance of this double – local and national – approach of the issue of integration and highlight the continuous negotiation process which underlies the integration activities. Local integration initiatives are in fact constantly reshaped by top-down and bottom-up dynamics which appear to be strongly interconnected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Framing has previously been studied in the field of pandemic preparedness and global health governance and influenza pandemics have usually been framed in terms of security and evidence-based medicine on a global scale. This paper is based on the pandemic preparedness plans, published after 2009, from eight European countries. We study how pandemic preparedness is framed and how pandemic influenza in general is narrated in the plans. All plans contain references to ‘uncertainty’, ‘pandemic phases’, ‘risk management’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘surveillance’. These themes were all framed differently in the studied plans. The preparedness plans in the member states diverge in ways that will challenge the ambition of the European Union to make the pandemic preparedness plans interoperable and to co-ordinate the member states during future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]