Ulrike Kluge

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

BackgroundHealth 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.MethodsStructured 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.ResultsEight 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.ConclusionsHealth 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.

Health care for immigrants in Europe: Is there still consensus among country experts about principles of good practice? A Delphi study

BackgroundEuropean 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsExperts 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.

Experiences with treating immigrants: a qualitative study in mental health services across 16 European countries

PurposeWhile there has been systematic research on the experiences of immigrant patients in mental health services within certain European countries, little research has explored the experiences of mental health professionals in the delivery of services to immigrants across Europe. This study sought to explore professionals’ experiences of delivering care to immigrants in districts densely populated with immigrants across Europe.MethodsForty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with mental health care professionals working in 16 European countries. Professionals in each country were recruited from three areas with the highest proportion of immigrants. For the purpose of this study, immigrants were defined as first-generation immigrants born outside the country of current residence, including regular immigrants, irregular immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe interviews highlighted specific challenges to treating immigrants in mental health services across all 16 countries including complications with diagnosis, difficulty in developing trust and increased risk of marginalisation.ConclusionsAlthough mental health service delivery varies between and within European countries, consistent challenges exist in the experiences of mental health professionals delivering services in communities with high proportions of immigrants. Improvements to practice should include training in reaching appropriate diagnoses, a focus on building trusting relationships and measures to counter marginalisation.

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

BackgroundHealth 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.ResultsSemi-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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Service provision and barriers to care for homeless people with mental health problems across 14 European capital cities

BackgroundMental health problems are disproportionately higher amongst homeless people. Many barriers exist for homeless people with mental health problems in accessing treatment yet little research has been done on service provision and quality of care for this group. The aim of this paper is to assess current service provision and identify barriers to care for homeless people with mental health problems in 14 European capital cities.MethodTwo methods of data collection were employed; (i) In two highly deprived areas in each of the 14 European capital cities, homeless-specific services providing mental health, social care or general health services were assessed. Data were obtained on service characteristics, staff and programmes provided. (ii) Semi-structured interviews were conducted in each area with experts in mental health care provision for homeless people in order to determine the barriers to care and ways to overcome them.ResultsAcross the 14 capital cities, 111 homeless-specific services were assessed. Input from professionally qualified mental health staff was reported as low, as were levels of active outreach and case finding. Out-of-hours service provision appears inadequate and high levels of service exclusion criteria were evident. Prejudice in the services towards homeless people, a lack of co-ordination amongst services, and the difficulties homeless people face in obtaining health insurance were identified as major barriers to service provision.ConclusionsWhile there is variability in service provision across European capital cities, the reported barriers to service accessibility are common. Homeless-specific services are more responsive to the initial needs of homeless people with mental health problems, while generic services tend to be more conducive to long term care. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of different service delivery models, including the most effective coordination of homeless specific and generic services.

Good practice in mental health care for socially marginalised groups in Europe: a qualitative study of expert views in 14 countries

BackgroundSocially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general population and can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particular challenge, and evidence on good practice is required. This study explored the experiences and views of experts in 14 European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sex workers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities.MethodsTwo highly deprived areas were selected in the capital cities of 14 countries, and experts were interviewed for each of the six marginalised groups. Semi-structured interviews with case vignettes were conducted to explore experiences of good practice and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsIn a total of 154 interviews, four components of good practice were identified across all six groups: a) establishing outreach programmes to identify and engage with individuals with mental disorders; b) facilitating access to services that provide different aspects of health care, including mental health care, and thus reducing the need for further referrals; c) strengthening the collaboration and co-ordination between different services; and d) disseminating information on services both to marginalised groups and to practitioners in the area.ConclusionsExperts across Europe hold similar views on what constitutes good practice in mental health care for marginalised groups. Care may be improved through better service organisation, coordination and information.

Mental health-care provision for marginalized groups across Europe: findings from the PROMO study

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.

How to express mental health problems: Turkish immigrants in Berlin compared to native Germans in Berlin and Turks in Istanbul.

The paper explores expressions used by Turkish immigrants in Berlin to delineate psychiatric illnesses and psychological problems. These are compared to expressions used by native Germans in Berlin and Turks in Istanbul to assess possible cultural differences in articulating mental disorders. For this purpose, results of a Free Listing carried out with the three above mentioned groups are presented. The data suggest that relevant items which are connected to mental health issues vary between the groups as well as within the groups, thus showing dependency on factors such as education. For the group of Turkish immigrants the data further suggest that this group connects psychic stress to family problems. Concerning help seeking, Turkish immigrants, like members of the other groups, mention professional psychological/psychiatric help as useful for solving mental health problems.

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

BackgroundIrregular migrants (IMs) are exposed to a wide range of risk factors for developing mental health problems. However, little is known about whether and how they receive mental health care across European countries. The aims of this study were (1) to identify barriers to mental health care for IMs, and (2) to explore ways by which these barriers are overcome in practice.MethodsData from semi-structured interviews with 25 experts in the field of mental health care for IMs in the capital cities of 14 European countries were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsExperts reported a range of barriers to mental health care for IMs. These include the absence of legal entitlements to health care in some countries or a lack of awareness of such entitlements, administrative obstacles, a shortage of culturally sensitive care, the complexity of the social needs of IMs, and their fear of being reported and deported. These barriers can be partly overcome by networks of committed professionals and supportive services. NGOs have become important initial points of contact for IMs, providing mental health care themselves or referring IMs to other suitable services. However, these services are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of either acting according to the legislation and institutional rules or providing care for humanitarian reasons, which involves the risk of acting illegally and providing care without authorisation.ConclusionsEven in countries where access to health care is legally possible for IMs, various other barriers remain. Some of these are common to all migrants, whilst others are specific for IMs. Attempts at improving mental health care for IMs should consider barriers beyond legal entitlement, including communicating information about entitlement to mental health care professionals and patients, providing culturally sensitive care and ensuring sufficient resources.

When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities

Volkswagen Foundation and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research . Grant Number: BMBF 01 EL0807