Search

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]

Background: It is now universally acknowledged that climate change constitutes a major threat to human health. At the same time, some of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so-called climate change mitigation measures, have significant health co-benefits (e.g., walking or cycling more; eating less meat). The goal of limiting global warming to 1,5° Celsius set by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in 2015 can only be reached if all stakeholders, including households, take actions to mitigate climate change. Results on whether framing mitigation measures in terms of their health co-benefits increases the likelihood of their implementation are inconsistent. The present study protocol describes the transdisciplinary project HOPE (HOuseholds' Preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries) that investigates the role of health co-benefits in households' decision making on climate change mitigation measures in urban households in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.Methods: HOPE employs a mixed-methods approach combining status-quo carbon footprint assessments, simulations of the reduction of households' carbon footprints, and qualitative in-depth interviews with a subgroup of households. Furthermore, a policy analysis of current household oriented climate policies is conducted. In the simulation of the reduction of households' carbon footprints, half of the households are provided with information on health co-benefits of climate change mitigation measures, the other half is not. Households' willingness to implement the measures is assessed and compared in between-group analyses of variance.Discussion: This is one of the first comprehensive mixed-methods approaches to investigate which mitigation measures households are most willing to implement in order to reach the 1,5° target set by the Paris Agreement, and whether health co-benefits can serve as a motivator for households to implement these measures. The comparison of the empirical data with current climate policies will provide knowledge for tailoring effective climate change mitigation and health policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthy life years have superseded life expectancy (LE) as the most important indicator for population health. The most common approach to separate the total number of life years into those spent in good and poor health is the Sullivan method which incorporates the health dimension to the classic period life table, thus transforming the LE indicator into the health expectancy (HE) indicator. However, life years derived from a period life table and health prevalence derived from survey data are based on different conceptual frameworks. Method: We modify the Sullivan method by combining the health prevalence data with the conceptually better fitting cross-sectional average length of life (CAL). We refer to this alternative HE indicator as the "cross-sectional average length of healthy life" (HCAL). We compare results from this alternative indicator with the conventional Sullivan approach for nine European countries. The analyses are based on EU-SILC data in three empirical applications, including the absolute and relative level of healthy life years, changes between 2008 and 2014, and the extent of the gender gap. Results: HCAL and conventional HE differ in each of these empirical applications. In general, HCAL provides larger gains in healthy life years in recent years, but at the same time greater declines in the proportion of healthy life years. Regarding the gender gap, HCAL provides a more favourable picture for women compared to conventional HE. Nonetheless, the extent of these differences between the indicators is only of minor extent. Conclusions: Albeit the differences between HE and HCAL are small, we found some empirical examples in which the two indicators led to different conclusions. It is important to note, however, that the measurement of health and the data quality are much more important for the healthy life years indicator than the choice of the variant of the Sullivan method. Nonetheless, we suggest to use HCAL in addition to HE whenever possible because it widens the spectrum of empirical analyses and serves for verification of results based on the highly sensitive HE indicator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite significant investments to support primary care internationally, income-based inequities in access to quality health care are present in many high-income countries. This study aims to determine whether low- and middle-income groups are more likely to report poor quality of primary care (PC) than high-income groups cross-nationally. Methods: The 2011 Commonwealth Fund Telephone Survey of Sicker Adults is a cross-sectional study across eleven countries. Respondents were recruited from randomly selected households. We used data from surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We identified all questions relating to primary care performance, and categorized these into five dimensions: 1) access to care, 2) coordination 3) patient-centered care, and 4) technical quality of care. We used logistic regression with low and middle-income as the comparison groups and high-income as the referent. Results: Fourteen thousand two hundred sixty-two respondents provided income data. Countries varied considerably in their extent of income disparity. Overall, 24.7% were categorized as low- and 13.9% as high-income. The odds of reporting poor access to care were higher for low- and middle-income than high-income respondents in Canada, New Zealand and the US. Similar results were found for Sweden and Norway on coordination; the opposite trend favoring the low- and middle-income groups was found in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. The odds of reporting poor patient-centered care were higher for low-income than high-income respondents in the Netherlands, Norway, and the US; in Australia, this was true for low- and middle-income respondents. On technical quality of care, the odds of reporting poor care were higher for the low- and middle-income comparisons in Canada and Norway; in Germany, the odds were higher for low-income respondents only. The odds of reporting poor technical quality of care were higher for high-income than low-income respondents in the Netherlands. Conclusion: Inequities in quality PC for low and middle income groups exist on at least one dimension in all countries, including some that in theory provide universal access. More research is needed to fully understand equity in the PC sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]