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: To develop a patient's attitude questionnaire regarding prevention in oral health for use internationally. Methods: Using a mixed methods approach, a questionnaire was developed and refined as part of ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) study, involving partners in six countries: Netherlands, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and the UK. A literature review explored the history of oral healthcare delivery systems to develop a template for each of the six ADVOCATE countries. A systematic review identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral healthcare and underpinned a topic guide and established the patient questionnaire domains. Focus groups in each ADVOCATE country developed the first version of the questionnaire. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in each ADVOCATE country tested the questionnaire and led to further refinement. The questionnaire was produced in five languages. Content validity and reproducibility used principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) refined the questionnaire. Results: The literature review aided an understanding of each country's oral healthcare system, and the findings from the 25 studies identified in the systematic review found the main barriers/facilitators to preventive oral healthcare were cost, knowledge (preventive treatments and advice), and a patient awareness and adherence to preventive advice/treatments. Interviews and focus groups with 148 participants in the ADVOCATE study identified receiving the appropriate level of care/feeling valued, cost, level of motivation/priority, not feeling informed, knowledge, and skill mix as the main barriers/facilitators. Fifty‐three PPIE members refined the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was tested with 160 participants. Non‐essential or highly correlated variables were then removed, leaving 38 items, covering 6 domains (cost, advice received, advice wanted, message delivery, motivation, knowledge, and responsibility) within the questionnaire. A second pilot test‐run was undertaken with 185 participants. The test‐re‐test reliability demonstrated strong consistency of responses between the two time points (kappa range 0.3–0.7, most p <.0011), which culminated with a final version of the Patient Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire (PAPOH) questionnaire. Conclusions: This mixed‐methods approach enabled the development of a multi‐language attitudinal questionnaire for use with patients (PAPOH) to compare attitudes to oral disease prevention internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To map, from the literature, health systems and services worldwide, characterizing them as to the type of social protection, service provision, organizational structure of the PHC and origin of financing. Methods: This is a Scoping Review of databases: Virtual Health Library, Embase, ProQuest, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health and Scientific Electronic Library Online. The descriptors and their combinations were used Health Systems, Health Services, Structure of Services and Primary Health Care, between 2009 and 2019, available in Spanish, French, English, Portuguese. They were analyzed considering study objectives, type of social protection, service provision, structure and organization of Primary Health Care and financing. Results: Twelve studies that followed the research proposal were included. The systems shown are related to the countries Iraq, Ecuador, Denmark, Argentina, Netherlands, Canada, Ireland, Belgium, France, Sweden, United Kingdom and Italy. Conclusion: Among the health systems and services of the analyzed countries, some are guided by the market model, others by the public offer of health care and there are those that integrate the two models. Health systems must offer services that reach the entire population, organized based on Primary Health Care. Those who adopt the social security model are the closest to this scenario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]