Search

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]

Objectives Burden of comorbidities are largely unknown in JIA. From 2000, national and international patient registries were established to monitor biologic treatment, disease activity and adverse events in patients with JIA. The aim of this analysis was to investigate in parallel, for the first time, three of the largest JIA registries in Europe/internationally—UK JIA Biologic Registers (BCRD/BSPAR-ETN), German biologic registers (BiKeR/JuMBO), multinational Pharmachild—to quantify the occurrence of selected comorbidities in patients with JIA. Methods Information on which data the registers collect were compared. Patient characteristics and levels of comorbidity were presented, focussing on four key conditions: uveitis, MAS, varicella, and history of tuberculosis. Incidence rates of these on MTX/biologic therapy were determined. Results 8066 patients were registered into the three JIA registers with similar history of the four comorbidities across the studies; however, varicella vaccination coverage was higher in Germany (56%) vs UK/Pharmachild (16%/13%). At final follow-up, prevalence of varicella infection was lower in Germany (15%) vs UK/Pharmachild (37%/50%). Prevalence of TB (0.1–1.8%) and uveitis (15–19%) was similar across all registers. The proportion of systemic-JIA patients who ever had MAS was lower in Germany (6%) vs UK (15%) and Pharmachild (17%). Conclusion This analysis is the first and largest to investigate the occurrence of four important comorbidities in three JIA registries in Europe and the role of anti-rheumatic drugs. Combined, these three registries represent one of the biggest collection of cases of JIA worldwide and offer a unique setting for future JIA outcome studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monitoring obesity and overweight prevalence is important for assessing interventions aimed at preventing or reducing the burden of obesity. This study aimed to provide current data regarding the prevalence of overweight and obesity of adults, from 20 European countries. Methods: Participants were 34814 (16482 men) adults with mean age 50.8± 17.7. Data from European Social Survey round 7, 2014, were analysed. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from self-reported height and weight. Results: The proportion of underweight was only 2%, and 44.9% for normal weight. Overweight and obese accounted for 53.1%. More men than women were overweight (44.7% vs. 30.5%). Older adults were significantly more overweight (42.4%) and obese (20.9%) than middle age and younger adults. Retired people account for a greater proportion of overweight (42.0%) and obese (21.5%), when compared with employed, unemployed and students. People from rural areas were significantly more overweight (39.1 vs. 36.1%) and obese (17.0 vs. 15.3%) than those who lived in urban areas. The estimates indicate that the highest prevalence of overweight was in Czech Republic (45.2%), Hungary (43.7%) and Lithuania (41.7%). For obesity, Slovenia (20.8%), Estonia (19.7%) and the United Kingdom (19.2%) were the countries with the highest prevalence. Conclusion: Even though data was self-reported, and individuals tend to overestimate their height and underestimate their weight, the prevalence of overweight and obesity is considered high. More than half of the European population is overweight and obese. This study strengthens and updates the claims of an excessive weight epidemic in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]