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 In Europe, more than 15 million people live with heart failure (HF). It imposes an enormous social, organizational and economic burden. As a reaction to impending impact on healthcare provision, different country-specific structures for HF-care have been established. The aim of this report is to provide an overview and compare the HF-care approaches of Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, and to open the possibility of learning from each other's experience. Methods A mixed methods approach was implemented that included a literature analysis, interviews and questionnaires with HF-patients and caregivers, and expert interviews with representatives from healthcare, health service research and medical informatics. Results The models of HF-care in all countries analyzed are based on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of HF. Even though the HF-models differed in design and implementation in practice, key challenges were similar: (i) unequal distribution of care between urban and rural areas, (ii) long waiting times, (iii) unequal access to and provision of healthcare services, (iv) information and communication gaps and (v) inadequate implementation and financing of digital applications. Conclusion Although promising approaches exist to structure and improve HF-care, across the four countries, implementation was reluctant to embrace novel methods. A lack of financial resources and insufficient digitalization making it difficult to adopt new concepts. Integration of HF-nurses seems to be an effective way of improving current models of HF-care. Digital solutions offer further opportunities to overcome communication and coordination gaps and to strengthen self-management skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In responding to Covid-19, governments have tried to balance protecting health while minimizing gross domestic product (GDP) losses. We compare health-related net benefit (HRNB) and GDP losses associated with government responses of the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden from UK healthcare payer perspective. Methods We compared observed cases, hospitalizations and deaths under 'mitigation' to modelled events under 'no mitigation' to 20 July 2020. We thus calculated healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and HRNB at £20,000/QALY saved by each country. On per population (i.e. per capita) basis, we compared HRNB with forecast reductions in 2020 GDP growth (overall or compared with Sweden as minimal mitigation country) and qualitatively and quantitatively described government responses. Results The UK saved 3.17 (0.32–3.65) million QALYs, £33 (8–38) billion healthcare costs and £1416 (220–1637) HRNB per capita at £20,000/QALY. Per capita, this is comparable to £1455 GDP loss using Sweden as comparator and offsets 46.1 (7.1–53.2)% of total £3075 GDP loss. Germany, Spain, and Sweden had greater HRNB per capita. These also offset a greater percentage of total GDP losses per capita. Ireland fared worst on both measures. Countries with more mask wearing, testing, and population susceptibility had better outcomes. Highest stringency responses did not appear to have best outcomes. Conclusions Our exploratory analysis indicates the benefit of government Covid-19 responses may outweigh their economic costs. The extent that HRNB offset economic losses appears to relate to population characteristics, testing levels, and mask wearing, rather than response stringency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on quality of care research in Europe. One study explored the effectiveness of computerized guidelines on patients, the behavior of clinicians and organization outcomes in an international setting. Another paper investigated whether the new pay-for-performance scheme for family practitioners in Great Britain has led to good clinical practice or has encouraged the abuse of its measures by excluding appropriate patients.

Background: Lowering energy (calorie) intake is essential in managing a healthy weight. One method of doing this is substituting sugar with low/no-calorie sweeteners. The safety of sweeteners has been debated, but little is known about how they are perceived by professionals responsible for weight management advice. We sought to explore dietitian perceptions of sweeteners and to identify the practical advice they provide about them. Methods: We collected data in France, Germany, Hungary, Portugal and the United Kingdom. We used face-toface interviews and a novel online tool designed to engage people with online content in a way that approximates everyday processes of making sense of information. Results: We identified four approaches to sweeteners that dietitians took: (1) sweeteners should not be used, (2) they should be limited and used primarily as a transitional product, (3) sweetener use was decided by the client and (4) sweeteners should be recommended or at least allowed. Where dietitians are reticent to recommend sweeteners this is because they feel it is important for consumers to reduce their attachment to sweet tastes and of evidence linking the consumption of sweeteners to increased appetite. There is also uncertainty about the possible negative health effects of sweeteners. Conclusions: Dietitians' perceptions about sweeteners are uncertain, ambivalent and divergent, sometimes explicitly being linked to fears about adverse health effects. Clear and authoritative guidance is required on scientific evidence around sweeteners as well as the ways in which they can be used in dietetic practice. [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]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the comparison of self-rated health in Poland with Greece, the suicide rates evaluated in Spain, and the evaluation of values and principles in decision making.

Background: Alcohol increases cancer risk, but less is known about public awareness of this link. This scoping review summarizes recent findings on the public awareness of alcohol as a cancer risk factor in European Union and UK., Methods: Four databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL) were searched for papers containing data on awareness of alcohol as cancer risk factor in EU or UK published between January 2017 and December 2022, and complemented with grey literature searches., Results: In total, 45 studies were included covering 18 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden) and UK, presenting data collected between 2009 and 2022. Studies covered general population (17 studied a nationally representative sample), women, health professionals, patients and young people. Awareness of alcohol causing cancer in general was higher and studied more often than awareness of alcohol's impact on specific cancers. Among the EU general population, awareness of the link between alcohol and breast cancer ranged between 10% and 20%, head and neck cancer 15-25%, colorectal and oesophagus cancer 15-45% and liver cancer 40%. Awareness was higher among young people and specialized health professions and lower among women (the latter specifically for the breast cancer)., Conclusions: While awareness rates varied depending on the exact question wording, many studies showed low awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, especially for specific types such as breast and colon cancer. Public should be better informed about alcohol consumption-related cancer risk., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)