Search

AbstractBelgium exhibits a complex governmental structure with overlapping yet fragmented healthcare service responsibilities across various levels. The past decade has been characterized with major political reforms, and a continuing road towards deinstitutionalization, enhancing care intensity, and fortifying primary care services. This article provides a concise overview of recent epidemiological trends in Belgium, the organizational landscape of mental healthcare, the roles and financing mechanisms of key institutions and professions, and a selection of specific topics such as euthanasia. Mental healthcare has ascended on the political agenda with a declaration of interest to eliminate a historical underfunding. This is urgent because over one fifth of the adult population struggles with mental issues on a yearly basis, with suicide rates 50 to 60% above the European average. Beyond the individual toll, there is a burning societal impact, reflected in the 7.4 billion euro directly spend within the healthcare sector, alongside substantial additional costs incurred through social security and productivity losses. Policy measures are needed to tackle contemporary challenges such as the attraction, recruiting and retention of skilled healthcare personnel, ensuring equitable remuneration across institutions and professions, and addressing critical areas such as forensic, transcultural, and transition psychiatry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMethodsResultsConclusions\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONSeveral high-income countries install Cash-for-Care Schemes (CCSs) by granting budgets to care users. However, little quantitative evidence exist on empowerment and client-centered care levels, due to a lack of validated scales. This research aimed to validate the Psychological Empowerment Scale (PE scale) and Client-Centered Care Questionnaire (CCCQ) in budget holders with disabilities.A survey was developed based on a literature review and experts and budget holders input. Principal Axis Factoring with direct oblimin rotation, Cronbach’s Alpha, and hypotheses testing with socio-demographic and budget characteristics as independent variables, and PE scale and CCCQ as dependent, were undertaken to assess both scales’ internal consistency and validity.A convenience sample of 224 Flemish (proxy) budget holders completed the survey. Our analysis showed a two-factor solution for both scales; for the PE scale consisting of “meaning” and “competence,” and “self-determination” and “impact,” for CCCQ consisting of items 1–7 (conduct by caregiver) and items 8–15 (autonomy). Cronbach’s Alpha of both scales was 0.94. The majority of our hypotheses were confirmed.The findings show that both scales are valid and internally consistent, meaning that they can be further tested in a respondent sample of people with disabilities and in other care contexts.In light of the current trends in the (health)care sector to stimulate empowerment and client-centered care in care users, the monitoring of this experience is important.The Psychological Empowerment Scale (PE scale) measures empowerment by means of four cognitions (meaning, competence, impact, and self-determination), while the Client-Centered Care Questionnaire (CCCQ) measures the level of client-centered care.The PE scale and CCCQ are valid and internally consistent in our sample of (proxy) budget holders with disabilities.In light of the current trends in the (health)care sector to stimulate empowerment and client-centered care in care users, the monitoring of this experience is important.The Psychological Empowerment Scale (PE scale) measures empowerment by means of four cognitions (meaning, competence, impact, and self-determination), while the Client-Centered Care Questionnaire (CCCQ) measures the level of client-centered care.The PE scale and CCCQ are valid and internally consistent in our sample of (proxy) budget holders with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]