| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Deville, Walter, et al.
(författare)
-
Health care for immigrants in Europe : Is there still consensus among country experts about principles of good practice? A Delphi study
- 2011
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 11, s. Art. no. 699-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Priebe, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Mental health-care provision for marginalized groups across Europe: findings from the PROMO study
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Public Health. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1101-1262 .- 1464-360X. ; 23:1, s. 97-103
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
