| 1. |
- Deville, Walter, et al.
(author)
-
Health care for immigrants in Europe : Is there still consensus among country experts about principles of good practice? A Delphi study
- 2011
-
In: BMC Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 11, s. Art. no. 699-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gavkalova, Nataliia, et al.
(author)
-
Digital Innovation Hubs and portfolio of their services across European economies
- 2023
-
In: Oeconomia Copernicana. - : Instytut Badan Gospodarczych / Institute of Economic Research. - 2083-1277 .- 2353-1827. ; 15:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research background: Digital ecosystems in Europe are heterogenous organizations involving different economies, industries, and contexts. Among them, Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) are considered a policy-driven organization fostered by the European Commission to push companies’ digital transition through a wide portfolio of supporting services.Purpose of the article: There are DIHs existing in all European economies, but literature needs more precise indications about their status and nature. The purpose is to study a distribution of DIHs and differences in portfolios of DIHs’ services across European economies. Therefore, the paper wants to deliver more precise data on effects on national and European policies. This is required to define their final role and scope in the complex dynamics of the digital transition, depending on regional context and heterogeneity of industries.Methods: Data on 38 economies was collected from the S3 platform (on both existing and in preparation DIHs) and further verified by native speaking researchers using manual web scrapping of websites of DIHs identified from S3. To find potential similarities of digital ecosystems in different economies as emanated by the existence of DIHs, clusterization (Ward’s method and Euclidean distances) was applied according to the services offered. Economies were clustered according to the number of DIHs and the spread of DIHs intensity in different cities. The results were further analyzed according to the scope of the provided services.Findings & value added: The applied clustering classified European economies in four different sets, according to the types of services offered by the DIHs. These sets are expression of the different digitalization statuses and strategies of the selected economies and, as such, the services a company can benefit from in a specific economy. Potential development-related reasons behind the data-driven clustering are then conjectured and reported, to guide companies and policy makers in their digitalization strategies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Genet, Nadine, et al.
(author)
-
Home care in Europe : a systematic literature review
- 2011
-
In: BMC Health Services Research. - : BMC. - 1472-6963. ; 11:207
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Health and social services provided at home are becoming increasingly important. Hence, there is a need for information on home care in Europe. The objective of this literature review was to respond to this need, by systematically describing what has been reported on home care in Europe in the scientific literature over the past decade. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for papers on home care published in English, using the following data bases: Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Social Care Online. Studies were only included if they complied with the definition of home care, were published between January 1998 and October 2009, and dealt with at least one of the 31 specified countries. Clinical interventions, instrument developments, local projects and reviews were excluded. The data extracted included: the characteristics of the study and aspects of home care ‘policy & regulation’, 'financing', ‘organisation & service delivery’, and ‘clients & informal carers’. Results: Seventy-four out of 5,133 potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, providing information on 18 countries. Many focused on the characteristics of home care recipients and on the organisation of home care. Geographical inequalities, market forces, quality and integration of services were also among the issues frequently discussed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that home care systems appeared to differ not just between but also within countries. The papers included, however, provided only a limited picture of home care. Many studies only focused on one aspect of the home care system and international comparative studies were rare. Furthermore, little information emerged on home care financing and on home care in general in Eastern Europe. This review clearly shows the need for more scientific publications on home care, especially papers comparing countries. A comprehensive and more complete insight into the state of home care in Europe requires gathering of information using a uniform framework and methodology.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
