Search

Background: End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. Methods: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. Results: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). Conclusion: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of stakeholders in a way that enables medical EoL care and volunteering to co-exist. Further research is needed to explore how trust and equal partnerships between volunteers and professional staff can be built and sustained. Trial registration: NCT04678310. Registered 21/12/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies revealed unidirectional associations between frailty and medication‐related problems (MRPs) among older adults. Less is known about the association between frailty and the risk of MRPs. We aimed to assess the bi‐directional association between frailty and the risk of MRPs in community‐dwelling older adults in five European countries. Methods: Participants were 1785 older adults in the population‐based Urban Health Centres Europe project. Repeated assessments were collected at baseline and one‐year follow‐up, including frailty, the risk of MRPs, and covariates. Linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the unidirectional associations. A cross‐lagged panel modeling was used to assess bi‐directional associations. Results: The unidirectional association between frailty at baseline and the risk of MRPs at follow‐up remained statistically significant after adjusting for covariates (β = 0.10, 95%CI:0.08, 0.13). The association between the risk of MRPs at baseline and frailty at follow‐up shows similar trends. The bi‐directional association was comparable with reported unidirectional associations, with a stronger effect from frailty at baseline to the risk of MRPs at follow‐up than reversed path (Wald test for comparing lagged effects: p < 0.05). Conclusion: This longitudinal study suggests that a cycle may exist where older adults with higher frailty levels are more likely to have a higher risk of MRPs, which in turn contributes to developing a higher level of frailty. Further research is needed to validate our findings and explore underlying pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Hypothesis It is argued that availability of diagnostic models will facilitate a more rapid identification of individuals who are at a higher risk of first episode psychosis (FEP). Therefore, we developed, evaluated, and validated a diagnostic risk estimation model to classify individual with FEP and controls across six countries. Study Design We used data from a large multi-center study encompassing 2627 phenotypically well-defined participants (aged 18–64 years) recruited from six countries spanning 17 research sites, as part of the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions study. To build the diagnostic model and identify which of important factors for estimating an individual risk of FEP, we applied a binary logistic model with regularization by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. The model was validated employing the internal-external cross-validation approach. The model performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, sensitivity, and specificity. Study Results Having included preselected 22 predictor variables, the model was able to discriminate adults with FEP and controls with high accuracy across all six countries (rangesAUROC = 0.84–0.86). Specificity (range = 73.9–78.0%) and sensitivity (range = 75.6–79.3%) were equally good, cumulatively indicating an excellent model accuracy; though, calibration slope for the diagnostic model showed a presence of some overfitting when applied specifically to participants from France, the UK, and The Netherlands. Conclusions The new FEP model achieved a good discrimination and good calibration across six countries with different ethnic contributions supporting its robustness and good generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Perceived discrimination is associated with worse mental health. Few studies have assessed whether perceived discrimination (i) is associated with the risk of psychotic disorders and (ii) contributes to an increased risk among minority ethnic groups relative to the ethnic majority. Methods: We used data from the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions Work Package 2, a population-based case−control study of incident psychotic disorders in 17 catchment sites across six countries. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between perceived discrimination and psychosis using mixed-effects logistic regression models. We used stratified and mediation analyses to explore differences for minority ethnic groups. Results: Reporting any perceived experience of major discrimination (e.g. unfair treatment by police, not getting hired) was higher in cases than controls (41.8% v. 34.2%). Pervasive experiences of discrimination (≥3 types) were also higher in cases than controls (11.3% v. 5.5%). In fully adjusted models, the odds of psychosis were 1.20 (95% CI 0.91–1.59) for any discrimination and 1.79 (95% CI 1.19–1.59) for pervasive discrimination compared with no discrimination. In stratified analyses, the magnitude of association for pervasive experiences of discrimination appeared stronger for minority ethnic groups (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.12–2.68) than the ethnic majority (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.65–3.10). In exploratory mediation analysis, pervasive discrimination minimally explained excess risk among minority ethnic groups (5.1%). Conclusions: Pervasive experiences of discrimination are associated with slightly increased odds of psychotic disorders and may minimally help explain excess risk for minority ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychosis rates are higher among some migrant groups. We hypothesized that psychosis in migrants is associated with cumulative social disadvantage during different phases of migration. Methods: We used data from the EUropean Network of National Schizophrenia Networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) case–control study. We defined a set of three indicators of social disadvantage for each phase: pre-migration, migration and post-migration. We examined whether social disadvantage in the pre- and post-migration phases, migration adversities, and mismatch between achievements and expectations differed between first-generation migrants with first-episode psychosis and healthy first-generation migrants, and tested whether this accounted for differences in odds of psychosis in multivariable logistic regression models. Results: In total, 249 cases and 219 controls were assessed. Pre-migration (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.06–2.44, p = 0.027) and post-migration social disadvantages (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.02–3.51, p = 0.044), along with expectations/achievements mismatch (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.26, p = 0.014) were all significantly associated with psychosis. Migration adversities (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.672–2.06, p = 0.568) were not significantly related to the outcome. Finally, we found a dose–response effect between the number of adversities across all phases and odds of psychosis (⩾6: OR 14.09, 95% CI 2.06–96.47, p = 0.007). Conclusions: The cumulative effect of social disadvantages before, during and after migration was associated with increased odds of psychosis in migrants, independently of ethnicity or length of stay in the country of arrival. Public health initiatives that address the social disadvantages that many migrants face during the whole migration process and post-migration psychological support may reduce the excess of psychosis in migrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]