Search

Background Alcohol increases cancer risk, but less is known about public awareness of this link. This scoping review summarizes recent findings on the public awareness of alcohol as a cancer risk factor in European Union and UK. Methods Four databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL) were searched for papers containing data on awareness of alcohol as cancer risk factor in EU or UK published between January 2017 and December 2022, and complemented with grey literature searches. Results In total, 45 studies were included covering 18 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden) and UK, presenting data collected between 2009 and 2022. Studies covered general population (17 studied a nationally representative sample), women, health professionals, patients and young people. Awareness of alcohol causing cancer in general was higher and studied more often than awareness of alcohol's impact on specific cancers. Among the EU general population, awareness of the link between alcohol and breast cancer ranged between 10% and 20%, head and neck cancer 15–25%, colorectal and oesophagus cancer 15–45% and liver cancer 40%. Awareness was higher among young people and specialized health professions and lower among women (the latter specifically for the breast cancer). Conclusions While awareness rates varied depending on the exact question wording, many studies showed low awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, especially for specific types such as breast and colon cancer. Public should be better informed about alcohol consumption-related cancer risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Within the European Union (EU), substantial efforts are being made to achieve economic and social cohesion, and the reduction of health inequalities between EU regions is integral to this process. This paper is the first to examine how self-reported conditions and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) vary spatially between and within countries. Methods: Using 2014 European Social Survey (ESS) data from 20 countries, this paper examines how regional inequalities in self-reported conditions and NCDs vary for men and women in 174 regions (levels 1 and 2 Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units, 'NUTS'). We document absolute and relative inequalities across Europe in the prevalence of eight conditions: general health, overweight/obesity, mental health, heart or circulation problems, high blood pressure, back, neck, muscular or joint pain, diabetes and cancer. Results: There is considerable inequality in self-reported conditions and NCDs between the regions of Europe, with rates highest in the regions of continental Europe, some Scandinavian regions and parts of the UK and lowest around regions bordering the Alps, in Ireland and France. However, for mental health and cancer, rates are highest in regions of Eastern European and lowest in some Nordic regions, Ireland and isolated regions in continental Europe. There are also widespread and consistent absolute and relative regional inequalities in all conditions within countries. These are largest in France, Germany and the UK, and smallest in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. There were higher inequalities amongst women. Conclusion: Using newly available harmonized morbidity data from across Europe, this paper shows that there are considerable regional inequalities within and between European countries in the distribution of self-reported conditions and NCDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the first wave of COVID-19, the UK Government relied heavily on digital channels to provide information to the public. This disproportionately excluded older people - one of the groups with least access to (or experience of) using the internet. Approximately 11.5 million people in the UK lack digital skills and 4.8 million people never go online, with around half (51%) of these being aged over 65. The Greater Manchester (GM) response was to work collaboratively with a number of key Ageing groups to develop Keeping Well at Home, a booklet providing evidence based health and wellbeing information and advice for older people during COVID-19 restrictions. Methods: An evaluation of the booklet was undertaken during summer 2020 by the Healthy Ageing team at the Applied Research Collaboration GM. As national restrictions on movement remained in place at the time, a postal questionnaire was distributed to a sample of older adults in GM. Results: Nearly 500 questionnaires were returned. The response was overwhelmingly positive; 92% found the information helpful; 90% agreed the booklet would help older people stay healthy during lockdown; 74% had used the home exercises section; 78% found the tips for keeping their mind well helpful. Around 50% of respondents did not have internet access. Paper based resources was the preferred choice for 92% of respondents with only 6% opting for digital versions. Conclusions: The evidence from the evaluation challenges the growing trend towards communicating just through digital channels, and emphasises the need for tailored paper-based materials for older adults. The Keeping Well at Home booklet also shows the value of working with older adults to ensure the content and design are inviting to readers. Information, support and services must be made available in an offline equivalent and proactively disseminated to reach those who otherwise would not have access to it. Key messages: Print-based communications are preferred over digital for some groups; ensuring inclusivity is critical as the ‘digital by default’ approach excludes large numbers of our population. Including target group representatives as co-editors to advise on content and stylistic design is key to ensure content is relevant and useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: OECD countries over the past two decades have implemented a range of labour market integration initiatives to improve the employment chances of disabled and chronically ill individuals. This article presents a systematic review and evidence synthesis on effectiveness of government interventions to influence employers’ employment practices concerning disabled and chronically ill individuals in five OECD countries. A separate paper reports on interventions to influence the behaviour of employees. Methods: Electronic and grey literature searches to identify all empirical studies reporting employment effects and/or process evaluations of government policies aimed at changing the behaviour of employers conducted between 1990 and 2008 from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Results: Few studies provided robust evaluations of the programmes or their differential effects and selection of participants into programmes may distort the findings of even controlled studies. A population-level effect of legislation to combat discrimination by employers could not be detected. Workplace adjustments had positive impacts on employment, but low uptake. Financial incentives such as wage subsidies can work if they are sufficiently generous. Involving employers in return-to-work planning can reduce subsequent sick leave and be appreciated by employees, but this policy has not been taken up with the level of intensity that is likely to make a difference. Some interventions favour the more advantaged disabled people and those closer to the labour market. Conclusions: Future evaluations need to pay more attention to differential impact of interventions, degree of take-up, non-stigmatizing implementation and wider policy context in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on quality of care research in Europe. One study explored the effectiveness of computerized guidelines on patients, the behavior of clinicians and organization outcomes in an international setting. Another paper investigated whether the new pay-for-performance scheme for family practitioners in Great Britain has led to good clinical practice or has encouraged the abuse of its measures by excluding appropriate patients.

The section presents several papers regarding health promotion. An overview of the social engineering perspective on health promotion is presented. Meanwhile, a study on Heartbeat Limburg, a large-scale health promotion intervention, is cited. Critical observations on health promotion in Great Britain are also tackled.