Search

Background Recent evidence indicates to the alarming increase of depression, especially in Southern European countries. According to the literature, depressive symptoms are strongly associated with socioeconomic factors, while the prevalence of depression significantly differs by gender. Several scholars point out that many of the risk factors for self-reported depression increase during an economic crisis. These studies, however, mostly overlook the fact that the impact of these factors may vary between natives and migrants. Methods Using data from the MIGHEAL study, we examine the variation of self-reported depression by migrant status and gender in Greece during the crisis. We also investigate the association of socioeconomic status, family-related factors, social trust and perceived discrimination with self-reported depression. Separate multiple linear regression models are fitted across three examined groups (Greeks, Albanians and migrants from other countries) as well as for Greek males and females. Results Our findings indicate the mixture of the determinants of self-reported depression by both migrant status and gender. Women report higher rates of self-reported depression than men, as do natives compared to migrants, while getting older is associated with higher levels of depression in both genders and all three citizenship groups. Further, higher socioeconomic position is associated with lower levels of depression, especially in the case of Greek males, while financial strain appears to be a significant determinant of self-reported depression for both native and migrant populations. Conclusions Our analysis does not confirm previous evidence that migrants are at an increased risk for depression. Age, gender, perceived discrimination and subjective general health appear to be more decisive determinants of self-reported depression than migrant background. Low socioeconomic status seems to be a risk factor for depression only in the case of Greeks.

This article presents the MIGHEAL study, which was developed in parallel with the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 7 (2014). Conducted in Greece in 2016 by the National Centre for Social Research, the study was specifically designed to further our understanding of how health varies by social status, focusing particularly on migrant status. In the current article, we report results on health status (non-communicable diseases, self-reported health and depressive symptoms) and health determinants (risky health behaviours, social determinants and access to health care) in Greece, among migrants and native-born. Estimates for the Greek overall population are compared with the European ones (using the ESS 2014 data) and discussed with reference to the ongoing economic and social crisis in Greece. The study provides evidence of social inequalities in health, complementing the pan-European documentation, and supports prior research, which has identified negative health consequences of the crisis. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This introduction summarizes and discusses the main findings of the supplement ‘Health in crises. Migration, austerity and inequalities in Greece and Europe’ to the European Journal of Public Health. The supplement applies data from the ESS (2014) health module in combination with the MIGHEAL study, which is a new source of data on the Greek population specially designed to examine health inequalities among and between migrants and natives. This has enabled the authors of the nine articles that constitute this supplement to address several pressing issues about the distribution of health and its determinants in Greece and other European countries. The main finding of the present supplement is the exceptionally high rates of reported depressive symptoms across the whole population residing in Greece and particularly among women. Levels of unmet need for healthcare were also found to be alarmingly high in Greece compared with other European countries, suggesting that the crisis and subsequent austerity policies may have impacted the provision of healthcare services and access to healthcare for broad sections of the population, whether native or migrant. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

h2. Introduction Against a background of growing international competition and of pervasive uncertainty and fluidity, flexicurity policies are being actively promoted in the EU policy agenda as a useful policy tool to address the needs of business to respond to rapid changes, while providing workers with a safety net. On one hand, businesses need to be able to adjust to new challenges and improve their competitiveness. On the other, the European social model needs to be reinforced and provide workers with protection, but also opportunities, in a volatile and threatening environment. The flexicurity model seems to provide the link between these seemingly incompatible goals. However, some critical questions arise as to the universal relevance of this model: The aim of this work is to address the above questions, as well as to shed some light on four particular aspects of the flexicurity agenda and the concurrent debate: Special attention in this paper is devoted to the question whether flexicurity policies can be successfully promoted in a national context characterised by segmented labour markets and widespread atypical and often unregulated employment, sub-protective welfare systems, a weak social consultation tradition, and the defensive responses of business to the challenges of globalisation. To this end, a considerable part of the work compares the experience of adopting flexibility and security measures in 4 EU countries (chosen on the basis of their distinct employment and welfare regimes and their vastly different degree of endorsement of flexicurity policies in their national policy agendas): 2 success stories – Denmark and the Netherlands- on one hand, and 2 reluctant supporters- Spain and Greece- on the other. The purpose of this comparative approach is to highlight the importance of institutional factors, as well as the (often under-estimated) key role of social attitudes and norms, in determining the direction and outcome of particular welfare and labour market initiatives. The first 5 sections of this work provide an overview of the main components of the flexicurity policy agenda, as spelled out in detail by the EU documents and as implemented on the terrain in the two success stories, Denmark and the Netherlands. Sections 6, 7 and 8 attempt a comparative analysis of the impact of the national context (economic, social, institutional and cultural) on the outcome of the flexicurity agenda in the 4 countries under consideration. Finally, section 9 discusses the main findings of the report and questions the relevance of the flexicurity agenda in times of growing uncertainty and global economic crisis.