Barriers to home care for terminally ill Turkish and Moroccan migrants, perceived by GPs and nurses: a survey

BACKGROUND: Previous qualitative research proved that relatives of elderly terminally ill Turkish and Moroccan immigrants experience several barriers to the use of Dutch professional home care. The aim of this study was to explore how general practitioners and home care nurses perceive the home care for terminally ill Turkish and Moroccan migrants and their families in the Netherlands. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to home care organizations and GPs working in areas where most of these migrants are living. 93 nurses and 78 GPs provided information about their experiences and opinions regarding home care for this group of patients. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: GPs refer relatively few patients from these migrant groups to home care. They often find it difficult to assess the needs of these patients and their families. In 40% of the GPs' cases in which terminally ill Turkish and Moroccan migrants were not referred to home care, the GP regretted this afterwards: the patients had not received sufficient qualified care, and their informal carers had often become overburdened. In addition, home care nurses often express dissatisfaction with the home care given to terminally ill Turkish or Moroccan patients, because of communication problems, the patients' lack of knowledge of the disease, or difficulties in making suitable appointments with the patient or with the family. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and GPs cite chiefly similar factors influencing access to and use of home care as family members did in a previous study. However, according to GPs and nurses, the main barrier to the use of home care concerns communication problems, while relatives cited the preference for family care as the main reason for abstaining from the use of home care. (aut. ref.

Effects of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza Virus 3 and Influenza Virus on CD4+ T Cell Activation by Dendritic Cells

BACKGROUND: Human respiratory syncytial virus (HRSV), and to a lesser extent human metapneumovirus (HMPV) and human parainfluenza virus type 3 (HPIV3), re-infect symptomatically throughout life without antigenic change, suggestive of incomplete immunity. One causative factor is thought to be viral interference with dendritic cell (DC)-mediated stimulation of CD4+ T cells. METHODOLOGY, PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We infected human monocyte-derived DC with purified HRSV, HMPV, HPIV3, or influenza A virus (IAV) and compared their ability to induce activation and proliferation of autologous CD4+ T cells in vitro. IAV was included because symptomatic re-infection without antigenic change is less frequent, suggesting that immune protection is more complete and durable. We examined virus-specific memory responses and superantigen-induced responses by multiparameter flow cytometry. Live virus was more stimulatory than inactivated virus in inducing DC-mediated proliferation of virus-specific memory CD4+ T cells, suggesting a lack of strong suppression by live virus. There were trends of increasing proliferation in the order: HMPV<HRSV<HPIV3<IAV, and greater production of interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α by proliferating cells in response to IAV, but differences were not significant. Exposure of DC to HRSV, HPIV3, or IAV reduced CD4+ T cell proliferation in response to secondary stimulus with superantigen, but the effect was transitory and greatest for IAV. T cell cytokine production was similar, with no evidence of Th2 or Th17 skewing. CONCLUSIONS, SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding the basis for the ability of HRSV in particular to symptomatically re-infect without significant antigenic change is of considerable interest. The present results show that these common respiratory viruses are similar in their ability to induce DC to activate CD4+ T cells. Thus, the results do not support the common model in which viral suppression of CD4+ T cell activation and proliferation by HRSV, HMPV, and HPIV3 is a major factor in the difference in re-infectability compared to IAV