Community-based Mental Healthcare: A Case Study in a Cross-border Region of Germany and the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Community-based mental healthcare (CBMH) aims at supplying psychiatric patients with rehabilitative care outside the hospital. The aim of this study was to compare the organization of CBMH in a cross-border region of Germany and the Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews gave insight into characteristics of CBMH approaches applied in the German region of Aachen (IHP) and the Dutch Province of Limburg (FACT). We applied a Delphi technique to select a performance indicator (PI) set for CBMH, which served as a conceptual model to allow comparison. RESULTS: Both approaches are flexible, patient-centred and include the evaluation of quality. Both provide financial and administrative support for the access. CONCLUSION: CBMH approaches appear to be equally valid from several perspectives even if they revealed, at the same time, important differences related to scope, integration with non-CBMH care resources and geographic coverage. Secondarily, the study provides a contribution to the development of a PI set to compare and evaluate CBMH approaches

Public health: disconnections between policy, practice and research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public health includes policy, practice and research but to sufficiently connect academic research, practice and public health policy appears to be difficult. Collaboration between policy, practice and research is imperative to obtaining more solid evidence in public health. However, the three domains do not easily work together because they emanate from three more or less independent 'niches'.</p> <p>Work cycles of each niche have the same successive steps: problem recognition, approach formulation, implementation, and evaluation, but are differently worked out. So far, the research has focused on agenda-setting which belongs to the first step, as expressed by Kingdon, and on the use of academic knowledge in policy makers' decision-making processes which belongs to the fourth step, as elaborated by Weiss. In addition, there are more steps in the policy-making process where exchange is needed.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A qualitative descriptive research was conducted by literature search. We analyzed the four steps of the policy, practice and research work cycles. Next, we interpreted the main conflicting aspects as disconnections for each step.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There are some conspicuous differences that strengthen the niche character of each domain and hamper integration and collaboration. Disconnections ranged from formulating priorities in problem statements to power roles, appraisal of evidence, work attitudes, work pace, transparency of goals, evaluation and continuation strategies and public accountability. Creating awareness of these disconnections may result in more compatibility between researchers, policy makers and practitioners.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We provide an analysis that can be used by public health services-related researchers, practitioners and policy makers to be aware of the risk for disconnections. A synthesis of the social, practical and scientific relevance of public health problems should be the starting point for a dialogue that seeks to establish a joint approach. To overcome the above mentioned disconnections, face-to-face encounters consistently emerge as the most efficient way to transfer knowledge, achieve higher quality and acknowledge mutual dependence. We recommend practice and policy based research networks to establish strong links between researchers, policy makers and practitioners to improve public health.</p