Search

The spread of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and the containment measures associated therewith have changed many aspects of daily life. An impact on health even beyond infections itself is assumed as well. The health situation of the population in the first phase of the pandemic was thus analysed using data from the German Health Update (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS). By continuing the survey, the analyses for 2020 are completed (n=26,507 participants), whereby the focus is now on the third phase of the pandemic (second wave of infection, gradual reintroduction of containment measures). The health indicators are presented on a monthly basis. As in the first phase of the pandemic, no pandemic-related changes were observed for tobacco smoking/ second-hand smoke exposure and for received/lack of/provided support. In contrast to the first phase of the pandemic, declines in utilisation of medical services and depressive symptoms are not observed in the third phase. The increase in body weight/body mass index after the first phase of the pandemic did not continue. The survey period allows for a comparison of the periods before and as of the pandemic situation. A decrease in the medical services utilisation and depressive symptoms as well as an increase in the body weight/body mass index is observed in the period from March 2020 to January 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic period from April 2019 to March 2020.

This paper explores the potential impact and practical difficulties of mainstreaming equalities in support at home for minority and majority ethnic older people, drawing on two linked empirical research projects. Social care providers have long faced difficulties in catering for diversity of need. Recently, diversity within minority ethnic groups has increased, and there is now a statutory duty to promote equality. Research findings illustrate the complexity of exclusionary processes, with particular reference to the example of health care. There is a gap between the high-level commitment to mainstreaming equality and people's lived experiences. Autonomy and choice are central to community care legislation, policy and practice guidance, but in reality, the research shows that choices are limited for both minority and majority older people. More user-focused approaches and grassroots involvement may offer ways forward, despite some limitations of current models. In conclusion, the potentiality of a broad mainstreaming equality perspective is highlighted, but challenges include a need for a more grounded approach, better engagement with user groups and a need to focus on understanding issues of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]