Search

Background and purpose Access to evidence-based mental health care for children is an international priority. However, there are significant challenges to advancing this public health priority in an efficient and equitable manner. The purpose of this international colloquium was to convene a multidisciplinary group of health researchers to build an agenda for addressing disparities in mental health care access and treatment for children and families through collaboration among scholars from the United States and Europe engaged in innovative implementation science and mental health services research. Key highlights Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework, presentations related to inner, outer, and bridging context factors that impact the accessibility and quality of mental health evidence-based practices (EBPs) for children and families. Three common topics emerged from the presentations and discussions from colloquium participants, which included: 1) the impact of inner and outer context factors that limit accessibility to EBPs across countries, 2) strategies to adapt EBPs to improve their fit in different settings, 3) the potential for implementation science to address emerging clinical and public health concerns. Implications The common topics discussed underscored that disparities in access to evidence-based mental health care are prevalent across countries. Opportunities for cross-country and cross-discipline learnings and collaborations can help drive solutions to address these inequities, which relate to the availability of a trained and culturally appropriate workforce, insurance reimbursement policies, and designing interventions and implementation strategies to support sustained use of evidence-based practices.

Background For financial reasons, dental prosthetics is one of the major unmet dental healthcare needs [Financial-SUN (F-SUN)]. Private fees for dental prosthetics result in significant out-of-pocket payments for users. This study analyzes the impact of geo-variations in protheses fees on dental F-SUN. Methods Using a nationwide French declarative survey and French National Health Insurance administrative data, we empirically tested the impact of prosthetic fees on dental F-SUN, taking into account several other enabling factors. Our empirical strategy was built on the homogeneous quality of the dental prosthesis selected and used to compute our price index. Results Unmet dental care needs due to financial issues concern not only the poorest but also people with middle incomes. The major finding is the positive association between dental fees and difficulty in gaining access to dental care when other enabling factors are taken into account (median fee in the highest quintile: OR = 1.35; P value = 0.024; 95% CI 1.04–1.76). People with dental F-SUN are those who have to make a greater financial effort due to a low/middle income or a lack of complementary health insurance. For identical financial reasons, the tendency to give up on healthcare increases as health deteriorates. Conclusions The results underscore the need for fee regulation regarding dental prosthetics. This is in line with the current French government dental care reform.

In 2005, France implemented a gatekeeping reform designed to improve care coordination and to reduce utilization of specialists’ services. Under this policy, patients designate a médecin traitant, typically a general practitioner, who will be their first point of contact during an episode of care and who will provide referrals to specialists. A key element of the policy is that patients who self-refer to a specialist face higher cost sharing than if they received a referral from their médecin traitant. We consider the effect of this policy on the utilization of physician services. Our analysis of administrative claims data spanning the years 2000–2008 indicates that visits to specialists, which were increasing in the years prior to the implementation of the reform, fell after the policy was in place. Additional evidence from the administrative claims as well as survey data suggest that this decline arose from a reduction in self-referrals, which is consistent with the objectives of the policy. Visits fell significantly both for specialties targeted by the policy and specialties for which self-referrals are still allowed for certain treatments. This apparent spillover effect may suggest that, at least initially, patients did not understand the subtleties of the policy.

Background Understanding interactions between patients and GPs may be important for optimising communication during consultations and improving health promotion, notably in the management of cardiovascular risk factors. Aim To explore the agreement between physicians and patients on the management of cardiovascular risk factors, and whether potential disagreement is linked to the patient9s educational level. Design of study INTERMEDE is a cross-sectional study with data collection occurring at GPs9 offices over a 2-week period in October 2007 in France. Method Data were collected from both patients and doctors respectively via pre- and post-consultation questionnaires that were ‘mirrored’, meaning that GPs and patients were presented with the same questions. Results The sample consisted of 585 eligible patients (61% females) and 27 GPs. Agreement between patients and GPs was better for tangible aspects of the consultation, such as measuring blood pressure (κ = 0.84, standard deviation [SD] = 0.04), compared to abstract elements, like advising the patient on nutrition (κ = 0.36, SD = 0.04), and on exercise (κ = 0.56, SD = 0.04). Patients9 age was closely related to level of education: half of those without any qualification were older than 65 years. The statistical association between education and agreement between physicians and patients disappeared after adjustment for age, but a trend remained. Conclusion This study reveals misunderstandings between patients and GPs on the content of the consultation, especially for health-promotion outcomes. Taking patients9 social characteristics into account, notably age and educational level, could improve mutual understanding between patients and GPs, and therefore, the quality of care.

Context Several studies provide evidence of horizontal inequities in health care use in France, i.e. differences in health care utilization for equal needs in favor of the highest socioeconomic groups [1-3]. Similarly, significant social inequalities in mortality have been found in France in comparison with other European countries [4]. However, the contribution of inequity in access to care to health inequalities is disputable and the consequences in term of health status and future health care consumption of horizontal inequities in health care use have scarcely been explored.

The Institut de Recherche et Documentation en Economie de la Sante (IRDES) Workshop on Applied Health Economics and Policy Evaluation aims at disseminating health economic research's newest findings and enhancing the community's capacity to address issues that are relevant to public policy. The 2010 program consisted of 16 articles covering a vast range of topics, such as health insurance, social health inequalities and health services research. While most of the articles embedded theoretical material, all had to include empirical material in order to favor more applied and practical discussions and results. The 2010 workshop is to be the first of a series of annual workshops in Paris gathering together researchers on health economics and policy evaluation. The next workshop is to be held at IRDES in June 2011.

Background The way in which patients and their doctors interact is a potentially important factor in optimal communication during consultations as well as treatment, compliance and follow-up care. The aim of this multidisciplinary study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the 'black box' that is the interaction between the two parties during a general practice consultation, and to identify factors therein that may contribute to producing health inequalities. This paper outlines the original multidisciplinary methodology used, and the feasibility of this type of study. Methods and design The study design combines methodologies on two separate samples in two phases. Firstly, a qualitative phase collected ethnographical and sociological data during consultation, followed by in-depth interviews with both patients and doctors independently. Secondly, a quantitative phase on a different sample of patients and physicians collected data via several questionnaires given to patients and doctors consisting of specific 'mirrored' questions asked post-consultation, as well as collecting information on patient and physician characteristics. Discussion The design and methodology used in this study were both successfully implemented, and readily accepted by doctors and patients alike. This type of multidisciplinary study shows great potential in providing further knowledge into the role of patient/physician interaction and its influence on maintaining or producing health inequalities. The next challenge in this study will be implementing the multidisciplinary approach during the data analysis.

Study objective: Since January 2005 France is exploring a new scheme termed "preferred doctor" (médecin traitant) which can be considered as an innovative version of Gate Keeping in order to reduce the excess of postulated excess in health consumption, more especially access to specialist care. This paper describes the political process which lead to it's implementation, tries to relate some of the scheme specific features with it's results after one year implementation and tries to catch a glimpse for the next steps of the reform. Material and methods: In order to measure the scheme impact on the "patient treatment pathway" and on physician income, we used a sample of 7198 individual from the 2006 "French health, Health Care and Insurance Survey "(ESPS),"including health, socioeconomic and insurance status and through a set of questions relating to patient's understanding of the scheme and different data bases of the national sickness fund as well as different studies done by regulatory agencies. Results and discussion: First results after one year implementation show that most patients chose a preferred doctor, who in a vast majority happened to be their family doctor. A vast majority of patients also considered the scheme as mandatory. Impact on access to specialist care, as measured through self assessed unmet need for specialist care, appears not negligible, especially for the less well off and those not covered by a complementary insurance. In term of financial impact, the new constraints on access to ambulatory care seem to have been offset by rises in the fee schedules for the specialities which lost direct access We discuss why these short term weak outcomes are linked with a wicked system of the health system governance and to the political and professional context in which the scheme unfolded strongly and determined its structure and implementation pathway. On a more long range perspective, we analyse how the new scheme may nevertheless lead up to reinforced managed care reforms.