Search

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background The rights of undocumented migrants are frequently overlooked. Denmark has ratified several international conventions recognizing the right to health care for all human beings, but has very scanty legislation and no existing policies for providing health care to undocumented migrants. This study focuses on how health professionals navigate and how they experience providing treatment for undocumented migrants in the Danish health care system. Methods The study was carried out as part of an EU-project on European Best Practices in Access, Quality and Appropriateness of Health Services for Immigrants in Europe (EUGATE). This presentation is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (9) and emergency room physicians (3) in Denmark. Results The emergency room physicians express that treatment of undocumented migrants is no different from the treatment of any other person. However, care may become more complicated due to lack of previous medical records and contact persons. Contrary to this, general practitioners explain that undocumented migrants will encounter formal barriers when trying to obtain treatment. Additional problems in the treatment of undocumented migrants include language issues, financial aspects for general practitioners, concerns about how to handle the situation including possibilities of further referrals, and an uncertainty as to whether to involve the police. Conclusions The health professionals in our study describe that undocumented migrants experience an unequal access to primary care facilities and that great uncertainties exist amongst health professionals as how to respond in such situations. The lack of official policies concerning the right to health care for undocumented migrants continue to pass on the responsibility to health professionals and, thereby, leaves it up to the individual to decide whether treatment can be obtained or not.

Abstract 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.

Objective. To explore which health care and other support services people exposed to traumatic events related to the war use, how helpful they perceive them in the course of their post-war adaptation and whether utilization and perceived usefulness depend on the mental health status of participants. Methods. A community sample of 3304 adults exposed to at least one war-related traumatic event was randomly selected in different regions in the former Yugoslavia. A specifically designed instrument, the Matrix for the Assessment of Community and Healthcare Services, was used to record service utilization and their perceived usefulness. The mental health status of participants was assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Results. Primary health care was the most frequently used type of service (80.5%). Services providing help with leisure activities, social support and social contacts were perceived as most helpful. Participants with current post-traumatic stress disorder used all types of health care services and employment support services significantly more often than participants without mental disorders and participants with other mental disorders. They were more satisfied with primary health care services than participants without mental disorders and less satisfied with financial and material support services as compared to participants with other mental disorders. Conclusions. The frequency of utilization of different types of services varies greatly in war affected communities. Medical services are widely used and therefore have a central role in the care provision following a war. Services providing help with leisure activities and social support are most appreciated and may be more widely established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: War experiences can affect mental health, but large-scale studies on the long-term impact are rare. We aimed to assess long-term mental health consequences of war in both people who stayed in the conflict area and refugees., Method: On average 8 years after the war in former Yugoslavia, participants were recruited by probabilistic sampling in 5 Balkan countries and by registers and networking in 3 Western European countries. General psychological symptoms were assessed on the Brief Symptom Inventory and posttraumatic stress symptoms on the Impact of Event Scale-Revised., Results: We assessed 3,313 interviewees in the Balkans and 854 refugees. Paranoid ideation and anxiety were the severest psychological symptoms in both samples. In multivariable regressions, older age, various specific war experiences and more traumatic experiences after the war were all associated with higher levels of both general psychological and posttraumatic stress symptoms in both samples. Additionally, a greater number of migration stressors and having only temporary legal status in the host country were associated with greater severity of symptoms in refugees., Conclusions: Psychological symptoms remain high in war-affected populations many years after the war, and this is particularly evident for refugees. Traumatic war experiences still predict higher symptom levels even when the findings have been adjusted for the influence of other factors., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)