Search

Background People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are known to have increased burden of cancer and higher cancer-related mortality when compared to the general population. These outcomes are linked to a variety of etiological factors, as well as the existence of significant barriers in accessing cancer prevention services. The aim of this study was to better understand current practices and knowledge relating to cancer prevention among PEH, health professionals and social care workers. Methods During autumn 2021, a cross-national qualitative study was conducted within the framework of the Horizon 2020 funded CANCERLESS project. Data were collected in Austria, Greece, Spain and the UK through semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed in accordance with the approach set out by Saldaña (2021). Results In total, 69 interviews were conducted with a sample comprising 15 professionals working in homelessness support services, 19 health professionals, and 35 PEH. Two overarching themes relating to the research question were identified, namely (a) experiences and understanding of cancer prevention and treatment, and (b) considerations for program intervention. While cancer was a major source of concern, tailored cancer prevention programs for the homeless population were described as effectively non-existent, and very few homeless participants recalled being invited to a screening appointment. Health professionals also indicated that because of barriers to health care, opportunities for the early diagnosis of cancer among PEH were often being missed. Conclusions The results indicate that PEH have limited knowledge around the importance of cancer prevention programs, and that more focused input on the part of health and social care services is required in this area. Culturally sensitive and person-centered approaches should be adopted to facilitate access to cancer prevention for PEH. Key messages • Specialized cancer prevention and health care pathways that take account of the living conditions and support needs of PEH should be established to improve health and cancer-related outcomes. • Cancer prevention programs should focus on improving health literacy by using accessible and tailored approaches, both for PEH and those that work directly with the homeless population.

Background Within the Project “Increased Access for Newly Arrived Migrants-AcToVax4NAM” (Grant n 101018349, 3rd EU Health Programme), a General Conceptual Framework (GCF) was developed for understanding how to improve vaccination coverage for Newly Arrived Migrants (NAM), by characterizing and critically analysing system barriers and possible solutions to increase vaccination Methods A logical pathway was hypothesized based on conceptual hubs in the immunization process. The identification of barriers and solutions was carried on by: a) non-systematic revision of scientific and grey literature, institutions and relevant websites, and documents suggested by Consortium Partners; b) qualitative research conducted in each Consortium Country. The GCF was used as a guide for the above mentioned activities and organize results into the GCF itself to enrich it with content Results 5 conceptual hubs were identified: ENTITLEMENT to vaccination, REACHABILITY of people to be vaccinated, ADHERENCE to vaccination, ACHIEVEMENT of vaccination, EVALUATION of the intervention. All hubs are linked sequentially, starting with Entitlement without which the process cannot take place. Hubs are connected: if vaccination does not take place, it’s important to go back to the previous hubs to understand the barriers. Reachability-Adherence-Achievement are closely related because some approaches are cross-cutting, such as proximity interventions which, in addition to allowing the system to approach NAM, promote adherence and thus possibility of completing the process. Other strategies may be implemented with different purposes: training aims to foster a culturally competent approach to facilitate adherence and avoid vaccination hesitancy, but also to improve competence in the entire process and lead to vaccination completion Conclusions The proposed GCF facilitates identification of barriers and possible solutions to the effective achievement of immunization, at all stages of the process Key messages • The GCF can be the basis for the creation of country-specific flow-charts through which to test strategies aimed at increasing immunization coverage in NAM. • The GCF will be useful at EU level, to facilitate both the harmonisation of approaches and interventions and the evaluation of comparable approaches.

The application of the electronic algorithm developed by the Mig‐Healthcare project was pilot tested in a sample of migrants and refugees in 2 Reception and Identification Centres (RICs), temporary settlements, in Greece using portable devices. The questions relate to health literacy issues, to mental health, to vaccination history, to lifestyle habits such as smoking, alcohol intake, diet, to the presence of diseases such as heart disease or diabetes, to the use of prevention services and to dental care. A total of 82 adults, 50 women and 32 men, participated. Data analysis showed that 67.1% (55) of the respondents had difficulty in understanding medical information and 57.3% (47) did not know where to seek medical help for a specific health problem. Four main areas of health problems were identified and further action is required: (A) mental health concerns, (B) vaccinations, (C) obesity, and (D) dental hygiene. Direct linkage with the “Roadmap and Toolbox” section of the project’s website gave the respondents access to many sources and tools, while through the use of the interactive map, specific referral points of healthcare delivery in their area were identified. IT‐based intervention in migrant and refugee populations in Greece are effective in increasing health literacy levels and identifying areas for health promotion interventions in these groups. Through linkage with the project’s database, access to healthcare provision points and action to seek appropriate healthcare when necessary are encouraged. Given the attenuated vulnerability profile of people living in temporary settlements, this algorithm can be easily used in primary care settings to improve migrant and refugee health. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

In this study, we collect and synthesize information on the health status of the refugee/migrant population in ten European countries in order to map refugee/migrant health needs. With this information, we identify areas of intervention and healthcare system strengthening to provide the basis for future health planning and effective healthcare provision to migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in the European Union (EU). Methods: 1407 migrants in ten European Union countries (consortium members of the Mig-HealthCare project) were surveyed on general health, mental health, and specific diseases using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to investigate the risk factors on general quality of life for migrants and refugees in the EU. Results: Mean age was 31.9 (±11.05) years and 889 (63.1%) participants were males. The majority came from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, and Iran. Having a mental health disorder or a chronic disease such as a heart or respiratory disease was associated with worse general health. On the other hand, having permission to stay in the country of interview and being interviewed in the country of final destination was associated with better general health. Access to health care services was fragmented or unavailable for some interviewees because of linguistic, cultural, or administrative barriers. Conclusions: The management of chronic diseases and mental health conditions in European migrants and refugees is a key priority for health service provision. Further efforts should be made to guarantee healthcare access for migrant and refugee populations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Background: There is increasing attention paid to the arrival of migrants from outwith the EU region to the European countries. Healthcare that is universally and equably accessible needs to be provided for these migrants throughout the range of national contexts and in response to complex and evolving individual needs. It is important to look at the evidence available on provision and access to healthcare for migrants to identify barriers to accessing healthcare and better plan necessary changes. Methods: This review scoped 77 papers from nine European countries (Austria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Spain, and Sweden) in English and in country-specific languages in order to provide an overview of migrants' access to healthcare. The review aims at identifying what is known about access to healthcare as well as healthcare use of migrants and refugees in the EU member states. The evidence included documents from 2011 onwards. Results: The literature reviewed confirms that despite the aspiration to ensure equality of access to healthcare, there is evidence of persistent inequalities between migrants and non-migrants in access to healthcare services. The evidence shows unmet healthcare needs, especially when it comes to mental and dental health as well as the existence of legal barriers in accessing healthcare. Language and communication barriers, overuse of emergency services and underuse of primary healthcare services as well as discrimination are described. Conclusions: The European situation concerning migrants' and refugees' health status and access to healthcare is heterogeneous and it is difficult to compare and draw any firm conclusions due to the scant evidence. Different diseases are prioritised by different countries, although these priorities do not always correspond to the expressed needs or priorities of the migrants. Mental healthcare, preventive care (immunization) and long-term care in the presence of a growing migrant older population are identified as priorities that deserve greater attention. There is a need to improve the existing data on migrants' health status, needs and access to healthcare to be able to tailor care to the needs of migrants. To conduct research that highlights migrants' own views on their health and barriers to access to healthcare is key. © 2020 The Author(s).

Background: Good physician-patient communication is an important aspect of patient-centered care and contributes to positive health outcomes, however, there is a lack of standard European Union (EU) communication training policies for physicians. This study explores the barriers to good communication for both physicians and patients across four EU countries as part of the EU-funded project, Health Communication Training for Health Professionals–H-COM. Method: Focus groups were conducted with 31 patients and 38 physicians from Germany, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus. Two separate discussion guides were constructed for each target group around three themes: perceptions of, barriers to, and needs for health communication. Thematic analysis was used. Results: Commonalities and differences between countries and target groups were identified, with participants discussing attitudinal, emotional, educational, and systemic barriers to good communication. Participants indicated a significant gap in health communication knowledge, skills, and training for physicians, with regional differences. Conclusion: The results imply that there is a need for EU-wide communication training for physicians that would be best addressed by common themes and tailoring to specific regional differences. The results also imply that effective training should encompass a blend of theory and practical methods, and should be delivered via an e-learning platform for maximum accessibility. Training programs that adhere to these suggestions can begin to address the gaps in patient-centered care in the EU. © 2020, © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Freely available healthcare, universally accessible to the population of citizens, is a key ideal for European welfare systems. As labor migration of the twentieth century gave way to the globalized streams of the twenty-first century, new challenges to fulfilling these ideals have emerged. The principle of freedom of movement, together with large-scale forced migration have led to large scale movements of people, making new demands on European healthcare systems which had previously been largely focused on meeting sedentary local populations' needs. Drawing on interviews with service providers working for NGOs and public healthcare systems and with policy makers across 10 European countries, this paper considers how forced migrants' healthcare needs are addressed by national health systems, with factors hindering access at organizational and individual level in particular focus. The ways in which refugees' and migrants' healthcare access is prevented are considered in terms of claims based on citizenship and on the human right to health and healthcare. Where claims based on citizenship are denied and there is no means of asserting the human right to health, migrants are caught in a new form of inequality. © Copyright © 2020 Bradby, Lebano, Hamed, Gil-Salmerón, Durá-Ferrandis, Garcés-Ferrer, Sherlaw, Christova, Karnaki, Zota and Riza.

Background: Strengthening community-based healthcare is a valuable strategy to reduce health inequalities and improve the integration of migrants and refugees into local communities in the European Union. However, little is known about how to effectively develop and run community-based healthcare models for migrants and refugees. Aiming at identifying the most-promising best practices, we performed a scoping review of the international academic literature into effective community-based healthcare models and interventions for migrants and refugees as part of the Mig-HealthCare project. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases was conducted in March 2018 following the PRISMA methodology. Data extraction from eligible publications included information on general study characteristics, a brief description of the intervention/model, and reported outcomes in terms of effectiveness and challenges. Subsequently, we critically assessed the available evidence per type of healthcare service according to specific criteria to establish a shortlist of the most promising best practices. Results: In total, 118 academic publications were critically reviewed and categorized in the thematic areas of mental health (n = 53), general health services (n = 36), noncommunicable diseases (n = 13), primary healthcare (n = 9), and women’s maternal and child health (n = 7). Conclusion: A set of 15 of the most-promising best practices and tools in community-based healthcare for migrants and refugees were identified that include several intervention approaches per thematic category. The elements of good communication, the linguistic barriers and the cultural differences, played crucial roles in the effective application of the interventions. The close collaboration of the various stakeholders, the local communities, the migrant/refugee communities, and the partnerships is a key element in the successful implementation of primary healthcare provision. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Health Care Workers (HCWs) are a high-risk group for contracting Vaccine-Preventable Diseases who, despite legislation and guidance, remain undervaccinated. In order to understand their barriers and needs, focus groups were formed with 278 physicians, nurses, infection-control personnel, and policy-makers in 7 EU MS. Several implications for the development of promotional initiatives were identified including the need to overcome organizational barriers, to sensitize HCWs about the importance of immunization and to provide specific up-to-date information about vaccinations covering prevalence of diseases, protection years, side effects, administration times, antibody examinations, costs and immunization settings.

Aims To qualitatively evaluate the optimal intervention (food-voucher approach vs. free daily meal distribution), aimed at reducing food insecurity and promoting healthy eating among students attending public schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Methods We randomly assigned 34 schools to one of the two interventions: students in 17 schools received a daily lunch-box and parents in the other 17 schools received a food voucher of equal value once a month. All students were offered the opportunity to participate. We conducted 30 focus groups in all participating schools (17 in the meal distribution and 13 in the food voucher schools). Eligible participants included parents (n = 106), educators (n = 66) and school principals (n = 34). We qualitatively evaluated their perceptions and attitudes towards the program. Results Important differences were observed between the two approaches, with more favourable perceptions being reported for the meal distribution approach. More specifically, social stigmatization was minimized in the meal distribution approach, through the participation of all students, compared with the food-voucher participants who reported feelings of embarrassment and fear of stigmatization. Secondly, the meal distribution approach alleviated child food insecurity through the provision of the daily meal, while the food-voucher intervention helped manage household food insecurity, as vouchers were mainly used for purchasing food for family meals. Furthermore, the educational and experiential nature of the meal distribution approach intensified healthy eating promotion, while the food-voucher intervention was efficient mainly for conscious parents regarding healthy eating. Conclusions The meal distribution intervention was considered more effective than the food-voucher one. Hence, for interventions aiming at tackling food insecurity of children and adolescents, public health focus could be oriented towards school-based in kind food assistance. © 2017