Mental health care for irregular migrants in Europe: Barriers and how they are overcome

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Good practice in health care for migrants: views and experiences of care professionals in 16 European countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health services across Europe provide health care for migrant patients every day. However, little systematic research has explored the views and experiences of health care professionals in different European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the difficulties professionals experience in their service when providing such care and what they consider constitutes good practice to overcome these problems or limit their negative impact on the quality of care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Structured interviews with open questions and case vignettes were conducted with health care professionals working in areas with high proportion of migrant populations in 16 countries. In each country, professionals in nine primary care practices, three accident and emergency hospital departments, and three community mental health services (total sample = 240) were interviewed about their views and experiences in providing care for migrant patients, i.e. from first generation immigrant populations. Answers were analysed using thematic content analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight types of problems and seven components of good practice were identified representing all statements in the interviews. The eight problems were: language barriers, difficulties in arranging care for migrants without health care coverage, social deprivation and traumatic experiences, lack of familiarity with the health care system, cultural differences, different understandings of illness and treatment, negative attitudes among staff and patients, and lack of access to medical history. The components of good practice to overcome these problems or limit their impact were: organisational flexibility with sufficient time and resources, good interpreting services, working with families and social services, cultural awareness of staff, educational programmes and information material for migrants, positive and stable relationships with staff, and clear guidelines on the care entitlements of different migrant groups. Problems and good care components were similar across the three types of services.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Health care professionals in different services experience similar difficulties when providing care to migrants. They also have relatively consistent views on what constitutes good practice. The degree to which these components already are part of routine practice varies. Implementing good practice requires sufficient resources and organisational flexibility, positive attitudes, training for staff and the provision of information.</p

Changes in the Provision of Institutionalized Mental Health Care in Post-Communist Countries

PMCID: PMC3371010This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Health care for irregular migrants: pragmatism across Europe. A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n = 240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.</p

Concordance between diagnoses based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and clinical diagnoses made by psychiatrists 1

AbstrACt Objectives

Comparing discrimination among people with schizophrenia, affective and anxiety disorders. A multilevel study in five European countries

Background: Most research on mental illness stigma has involved people with psychosis; less information is available for people with affective and anxiety disorders. We aimed to compare experienced and anticipated discrimination among people with schizophrenia, and affective and anxiety disorders. Methods: People with schizophrenia (n=773), affective (n=1010) and anxiety disorders (n=372) were recruited during psychiatric admission across 5 EU countries. The Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-12) was used. Multivariate mixed effect logistic regression models with a random effect for hospital and country were performed to explore patient characteristics associated with experienced and anticipated discrimination. Results: With anxiety disorders, there were more reports of experiences of discrimination in social life (35%), intimate relationships (23.5%), and physical healthcare (19%); in schizophrenia, in relations with neighbours (23.6%) and mental health staff (21.7%); and in affective disorders, in parental role (22.8%). In multivariate analyses, anxiety was associated with increased likelihood of experiencing discrimination in police interactions (OR=1.675; p=0.038) and physical healthcare (OR=1.816; p=0.003), and reduced likelihood when starting a family (OR=0.474; p=0.01) as compared with schizophrenia. Affective (OR=1.367; p=0.004) and anxiety disorders (OR=1.354; p=0.034) were associated with increased likelihood of concealing a diagnosis compared with schizophrenia. Limitations: As patients with affective and anxiety disorders were recruited from hospital inpatient units, their experiences may not be representative of all people with these disorders. Conclusions: In a sample of people receiving inpatient treatment, experienced and anticipated discrimination are perceived, at least in some life domains, as more of a burden for people with affective and anxiety disorders than those with schizophrenia

Personal continuity versus specialisation of care approaches in mental healthcare: experiences of patients and clinicians—results of the qualitative study in five European countries

Background: The current debate on organisation of the mental health care raises a question whether to prioritise specialisation of clinical teams or personal continuity of care. The article explores the experiences of patients and clinicians regarding specialisation (SC) and personal continuity (PCC) of care in five European countries. Methods: Data were obtained via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 188) suffering from mental disorders (F20–49) and with clinicians (N = 63). A maximum variation sampling was applied to assume representation of patients and of clinicians with different characteristics. The qualitative data from each country were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed through a thematic analysis method. Results: Many positive experiences of patients and clinicians with the PCC approach relate to the high quality of therapeutic relationship and the smooth transition between hospital and community care. Many positive experiences of patients and clinicians with the SC approach relate to concepts of autonomy and choice and the higher adequacy of diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians stressed system aspects of providing mental health care: more effective management structure and higher professionalization of care within SC approach and the lower risk of disengagement from treatment and reduced need for coercion, restraint, forced medication or involuntary admission within PCC. Conclusions: Neither the PCC, nor the SC approach meets the needs and expectations of all patients (and clinicians). Therefore, future reforms of mental health services should offer a free choice of either approach, considering that there is no evidence of differences in patient outcomes between PCC and SC approaches

Do outcomes of psychiatric hospital treatment differ for migrants and non-migrants?

Providing effective treatment for immigrants is an increasing challenge for mental health services across Europe. Yet, little is known as to whether current practice is associated with different outcomes in migrant and non-migrant patients. We compared outcomes of inpatient psychiatric treatment for migrants and non-migrants in a sample from five European countries