Search

Background: Providing mental health care to socially marginalized groups is a challenge. There is limited evidence on what form of mental health-care generic (i.e. not targeting a specific social group) and group-specific services provide to socially marginalized groups in Europe. Aim: To describe the characteristics of services providing mental health care for people with mental disorders from socially marginalized groups in European capitals. Methods: In two highly deprived areas in different European capital cities, services providing some form of mental health care for six marginalized groups, i.e. homeless, street sex workers, asylum seekers/refugees, irregular migrants, travelling communities and long-term unemployed, were identified and contacted. Data were obtained on service characteristics, staff and programmes. Results: In 8 capital cities, 516 out of 575 identified services were assessed (90%); 297 services were generic (18–79 per city) and 219 group-specific (13–50). All cities had group-specific services for the homeless, street sex workers and asylum seekers/refugees. Generic services provided more health-care programmes. Group-specific services provided more outreach programmes and social care. There was a substantial overlap in the programmes provided by the two types of services. Conclusions: In deprived areas of European capitals, a considerable number of services provide mental health care to socially marginalized groups. Access to these services often remains difficult. Group-specific services have been widely established, but their role overlaps with that of generic services. More research and conceptual clarity on the function of group-specific services are required. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose: While there has been systematic research on the experiences of immigrant patients in mental health services within certain European countries, little research has explored the experiences of mental health professionals in the delivery of services to immigrants across Europe. This study sought to explore professionals' experiences of delivering care to immigrants in districts densely populated with immigrants across Europe. Methods: Forty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with mental health care professionals working in 16 European countries. Professionals in each country were recruited from three areas with the highest proportion of immigrants. For the purpose of this study, immigrants were defined as first-generation immigrants born outside the country of current residence, including regular immigrants, irregular immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The interviews highlighted specific challenges to treating immigrants in mental health services across all 16 countries including complications with diagnosis, difficulty in developing trust and increased risk of marginalisation. Conclusions: Although mental health service delivery varies between and within European countries, consistent challenges exist in the experiences of mental health professionals delivering services in communities with high proportions of immigrants. Improvements to practice should include training in reaching appropriate diagnoses, a focus on building trusting relationships and measures to counter marginalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Socially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general population and can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particular challenge, and evidence on good practice is required. This study explored the experiences and views of experts in 14 European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sex workers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities. Methods: Two highly deprived areas were selected in the capital cities of 14 countries, and experts were interviewed for each of the six marginalised groups. Semi-structured interviews with case vignettes were conducted to explore experiences of good practice and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In a total of 154 interviews, four components of good practice were identified across all six groups: a) establishing outreach programmes to identify and engage with individuals with mental disorders; b) facilitating access to services that provide different aspects of health care, including mental health care, and thus reducing the need for further referrals; c) strengthening the collaboration and co-ordination between different services; and d) disseminating information on services both to marginalised groups and to practitioners in the area. Conclusions: Experts across Europe hold similar views on what constitutes good practice in mental health care for marginalised groups. Care may be improved through better service organisation, coordination and information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health services across Europe provide health care for migrant patients every day. However, little systematic research has explored the views and experiences of health care professionals in different European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the difficulties professionals experience in their service when providing such care and what they consider constitutes good practice to overcome these problems or limit their negative impact on the quality of care. Methods: Structured interviews with open questions and case vignettes were conducted with health care professionals working in areas with high proportion of migrant populations in 16 countries. In each country, professionals in nine primary care practices, three accident and emergency hospital departments, and three community mental health services (total sample = 240) were interviewed about their views and experiences in providing care for migrant patients, i.e. from first generation immigrant populations. Answers were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results: Eight types of problems and seven components of good practice were identified representing all statements in the interviews. The eight problems were: language barriers, difficulties in arranging care for migrants without health care coverage, social deprivation and traumatic experiences, lack of familiarity with the health care system, cultural differences, different understandings of illness and treatment, negative attitudes among staff and patients, and lack of access to medical history. The components of good practice to overcome these problems or limit their impact were: organisational flexibility with sufficient time and resources, good interpreting services, working with families and social services, cultural awareness of staff, educational programmes and information material for migrants, positive and stable relationships with staff, and clear guidelines on the care entitlements of different migrant groups. Problems and good care components were similar across the three types of services. Conclusions: Health care professionals in different services experience similar difficulties when providing care to migrants. They also have relatively consistent views on what constitutes good practice. The degree to which these components already are part of routine practice varies. Implementing good practice requires sufficient resources and organisational flexibility, positive attitudes, training for staff and the provision of information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter provides an overview of health literacy measurement initiatives with a focus on the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU) - describing where measuring population health literacy started, where it currently is, and providing an outlook to the upcoming European HL survey. In the first part of the chapter, the methodology and the main results of the initial HLS-EU study from 2011 will be introduced. In the second part the worldwide impact of the HLS-EU study will be mapped. Many publications and studies used the HLS-EU instruments in the original or few in an adapted way to measure comprehensive health literacy - in many different settings and in diverse countries. Finally, the chapter ends with an outlook to the M-POHL and HLS19 initiatives of WHO-Europe which are intended to advance HLS-EU as well as the measurement of population and organizational health literacy in a more coordinated, standardized, and institutionalized manner.

Psychiatric re-hospitalisation rates have been of longstanding interest as health care quality metric for planners and policy makers, but are criticized for not being comparable across hospitals and countries due to measurement unclarities. The objectives of the present study were to explore the interoperability of national electronic routine health care registries of six European countries (Austria, Finland, Italy, Norway, Romania, Slovenia) and, by using variables found to be comparable, to calculate and compare re-hospitalisation rates and the associated risk factors. A "Methods Toolkit" was developed for exploring the interoperability of registry data and protocol led pilot studies were carried out. Problems encountered in this process are described. Using restricted but comparable data sets, up to twofold differences in psychiatric re-hospitalisation rates were found between countries for both a 30- and 365-day follow-up period. Cumulative incidence curves revealed noteworthy additional differences. Health system characteristics are discussed as potential causes for the differences. Multi-level logistic regression analyses showed that younger age and a diagnosis of schizophrenia/mania/bipolar disorder consistently increased the probability of psychiatric re-hospitalisation across countries. It is concluded that the advantage of having large unselected study populations of national electronic health care registries needs to be balanced against the considerable efforts to examine the interoperability of databases in cross-country comparisons., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Comparing mental health systems across countries is difficult because of the lack of an agreed upon terminology covering services and related financing issues. Within the European Union project REFINEMENT, international mental health care experts applied an innovative mixed "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach following a multistep design thinking strategy to compile a glossary on mental health systems, using local services as pilots. The final REFINEMENT glossary consisted of 432 terms related to service provision, service utilisation, quality of care and financing. The aim of this study was to describe the iterative process and methodology of developing this glossary.

Background: Different service characteristics are known to influence mental health care delivery. Much less is known about the impact of contextual factors, such as the socioeconomic circumstances, on the provision of care to socially marginalized groups.The objectives of this work were to assess the organisational characteristics of services providing mental health care for marginalized groups in 14 European capital cities and to explore the associations between organisational quality, service features and country-level characteristics., Methods: 617 services were assessed in two highly deprived areas in 14 European capital cities. A Quality Index of Service Organisation (QISO) was developed and applied across all sites. Service characteristics and country level socioeconomic indicators were tested and related with the Index using linear regressions and random intercept linear models., Results: The mean (standard deviation) of the QISO score (minimum = 0; maximum = 15) varied from 8.63 (2.23) in Ireland to 12.40 (2.07) in Hungary. The number of different programmes provided was the only service characteristic significantly correlated with the QISO (p < 0.05). The national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was inversely associated with the QISO. Nearly 15% of the variance of the QISO was attributed to country-level variables, with GDP explaining 12% of this variance., Conclusions: Socioeconomic contextual factors, in particular the national GDP are likely to influence the organisational quality of services providing mental health care for marginalized groups. Such factors should be considered in international comparative studies. Their significance for different types of services should be explored in further research.

Background: Irregular migrants (IMs) are exposed to a wide range of risk factors for developing mental health problems. However, little is known about whether and how they receive mental health care across European countries. The aims of this study were (1) to identify barriers to mental health care for IMs, and (2) to explore ways by which these barriers are overcome in practice., Methods: Data from semi-structured interviews with 25 experts in the field of mental health care for IMs in the capital cities of 14 European countries were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Experts reported a range of barriers to mental health care for IMs. These include the absence of legal entitlements to health care in some countries or a lack of awareness of such entitlements, administrative obstacles, a shortage of culturally sensitive care, the complexity of the social needs of IMs, and their fear of being reported and deported. These barriers can be partly overcome by networks of committed professionals and supportive services. NGOs have become important initial points of contact for IMs, providing mental health care themselves or referring IMs to other suitable services. However, these services are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of either acting according to the legislation and institutional rules or providing care for humanitarian reasons, which involves the risk of acting illegally and providing care without authorisation., Conclusions: Even in countries where access to health care is legally possible for IMs, various other barriers remain. Some of these are common to all migrants, whilst others are specific for IMs. Attempts at improving mental health care for IMs should consider barriers beyond legal entitlement, including communicating information about entitlement to mental health care professionals and patients, providing culturally sensitive care and ensuring sufficient resources.

Background: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants., Methods: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants., Results: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e.g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e.g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants., Conclusions: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.