Search

Type 2 diabetes mellitus represents a multi-dimensional challenge for European and global societies alike. Building on an iterative six-step disease management process that leverages feedback loops and utilizes commodity digital tools, the PDM-ProValue study program demonstrated that integrated personalized diabetes management, or iPDM, can improve the standard of care for persons living with diabetes in a sustainable way. The novel "iPDM Goes Europe" consortium strives to advance iPDM adoption by (1) implementing the concept in a value-based healthcare setting for the treatment of persons living with type 2 diabetes, (2) providing tools to assess the patient's physical and mental health status, and (3) exploring new avenues to take advantage of emerging big data resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper presents the results from a qualitative study in which the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was used to analyze deregulation of the distribution of medicine in Denmark in October 2001. The study is based on qualitative methods, and it examines the policy process between 1996 and 2001. Data sources were documents and qualitative interviews. The results show that minor modifications of the ACF are needed to make it fully applicable to the case of pharmacy policy, especially when the policy process proceeds in a predominantly corporatist state. We found that the policy process was framed by two coalitions advocating different belief systems. One coalition wanted the pharmacy sector to be controlled by the state, the other wanted a full-scale liberalization. Throughout the process there was a general shift in policy core beliefs among the actors involved—moving from positively disposed towards a market-oriented reform to being more negatively disposed towards such a reform. We argue that two factors contributed to this. First, as the discussions about a reform became more specific, technical matters began to influence the actors. Second, the legitimacy of a solution which did not alter the regulation of the pharmacy sector radically, was reinforced by institutionalized norms that made politicians take onboard pharmacy professionals’ concerns. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragmented nature of governmental policy decisions in Europe. However, the extent to which COVID-19 vaccination policies differed between European countries remains unclear. Here, we mapped the COVID-19 vaccination policies that were in effect in January 2022 as well as booster regulations in April 2022 in Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. National public health and health policy experts from these ten European nations developed and completed an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire included a series of questions that addressed six critical components of vaccine implementation, including (1) authorization, (2) prioritization, (3) procurement and distribution, (4) data collection, (5) administration, and (6) mandate requirements. Our findings revealed significant variations in COVID-19 vaccination policies across Europe. We observed critical differences in COVID-19 vaccine formulations authorized for use, as well as the specific groups that were provided with priority access. We also identified discrepancies in how vaccination-related data were recorded in each country and what vaccination requirements were implemented. Each of the ten European nations surveyed in this study reported different COVID-19 vaccination policies. These differences complicated efforts to provide a coordinated pandemic response. These findings might alert policymakers in Europe of the need to coordinate their efforts to avoid fostering divergent and socially disruptive policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to investigate the potential protective role of baseline resources and capabilities for experiencing challenges to emotional well-being and perceived access to and quality of diabetes care during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Danish type 2 diabetes population (N = 1608). We investigated how differences in self-efficacy, well-being capability, socioeconomic status, health status, and perceptions of diabetes care measured before the COVID-19 pandemic were related to experiences of well-being and diabetes management challenges during the pandemic. The study is based on a survey conducted shortly before the pandemic (autumn 2019) and a follow-up survey during the pandemic (autumn 2020), which included questions about impacts of the pandemic. We used this longitudinal data to quantitatively investigate in regression analyses how self-reported baseline indicators of chronic care access and quality (PACIC), self-efficacy (GSE), health (EQ VAS), and well-being capability (ICECAP-A), and registry-based socioeconomic indicators were associated with the probability of reporting negative impacts on emotional wellbeing and diabetes management. Results showed that respondents with higher baseline general self-efficacy and higher well-being capability scores, who more often considered care well-organised and were in better health before the pandemic, were less likely to report pandemic-related negative impacts on emotional well-being. Considering diabetes care well organised before the pandemic was associated with a lower probability of adverse impacts on diabetes care. The results thus broadly confirmed that several indicators of higher levels of baseline resources and capabilities were associated with a lower probability of reporting negative impacts of the pandemic. However, some variation in predictors was observed for general well-being outcomes, compared to diabetes-care specific challenges, and findings on socioeconomic status as indicated by education were mixed. • Novel panel data on impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on wellbeing and diabetes care. • Capabilities associated with lower probability of negative impact on wellbeing. • Impacts on diabetes care associated with baseline healthcare related resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare inequities are often investigated empirically as associations between socio-economic characteristics and differences between observed healthcare utilisation and estimates of needs-based utilisation. However, the concept of 'need' is tricky to operationalise and utilisation may be contingent on inequities arising at an earlier stage. In this study, we apply a unique combination of register and survey data collected in 2019 to assess equity in opportunities to access treatment for patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. In the study of this population (N = 1864) we escape the challenge of estimating needs by arguing that need can be approximated from treatment guidelines within a nationwide framework of disease management programmes. Furthermore, instead of observed utilisation we use patient reports on whether they have been offered treatment as a measure of opportunities to access multiple components of care, that is, we focus on possible inequalities arising prior to possible utilisation inequalities. 'Healthcare gaps' are computed as the discrepancy between an index of guideline recommended treatments and patients' perceived offers of treatments, thus providing a novel take on the 'healthcare deprivation profiles' approach to the study of healthcare inequalities. Using this method, we explore and document inequalities along multiple dimensions of familiar socio-economic factors (income, education, occupation) as well as self-reported barriers to access. We also provide supporting evidence that healthcare gaps, as measured in our study, are associated with poorer quality of care, and that those who experience large gaps are more likely to be disadvantaged in terms of self-reported difficulties in relation to key self-care aspects. We conclude that even in a health system with comprehensive universal coverage, healthcare inequity can arise already at the stage of offering access to preventive treatment. The results warrant further research into the causes, consequences and remedies of such inequities. • We investigate access inequity in diabetes disease management programmes. • Healthcare gap profiles display unequal opportunities to access treatment. • We find socio-economically related inequalities in self-reported measures of access. • The results indicate several possible mechanisms of healthcare access constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The involvement of private for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) providers in the otherwise public delivery of welfare services is gradually changing the Nordic welfare state towards a more market-oriented mode of service delivery. This article examines the relationship between ownership and quality of care in public and private FP and NFP nursing homes in Denmark. The analysis draws on original survey data and administrative registry data (quality inspection reports) for the full population of almost 1000 nursing homes in Denmark. Quality is measured in terms of structural quality, process quality and outcome quality. We find that public nursing homes have a higher structural quality (in terms of, for instance, staffing), while FP providers perform better in terms of process quality (e.g. in the form of individualised care). NFP providers perform well in terms of structural criteria such as employment of full-time staff and receive fewer critical comments in the inspection reports. However, the results depend to some extent upon the method of data collection, which underlines the benefits of using multiple data sources to examine the relationship between ownership and the quality of care. Highlights • The article analyzes quality differences between public and private nursing homes. • Overall, ownership is not significantly associated with quality differences. • Public nursing homes perform, however, better on some dimensions of structural quality. • Private for-profit nursing homes perform better on some dimensions of process quality. • Non-profit nursing homes receive fewer critical comments in official inspection reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]