Search

Summary The COVID-19 crisis impacts populations globally. This impact seems to differ for groups with low- and high-socioeconomic status (SES). We conducted a qualitative study in the Netherlands using a salutogenic perspective to examine experiences with stressors and coping resources during the pandemic among both SES groups to gain insight on how to promote the health and well-being of these groups. We conducted 10 focus group discussions and 20 interviews to explore the experiences, including resources and stressors, of respondents from low- (N = 37) and high-SES (N = 38) groups (25–55 years, Dutch speaking). We analyzed the findings at individual, community, and national levels. The results show that coping depends on government-imposed measures and the way individuals handle these measures; restriction to the home context with positive and negative consequences for work and leisure; psychological negative consequences and resourcefulness; and social effects related to unity (e.g. social cohesion or support) and division (including polarization). Respondents with lower SES expressed more problems with COVID-19 measures and experienced more social impact in their neighborhood than those with higher SES. Where low-SES groups especially mentioned the effects of staying at home on family life, high-SES groups mentioned effects on work life. At last, psychological consequences seem to differ somewhat across SES groups. Recommendations include consistent government-imposed measures and government communication, support for home schooling children, and strengthening the social fabric of neighborhoods.

Aims: To determine registered nurses' and care assistants' difficulties and strategies for preserving dignity of migrant patients in the last phase of life and their families. Background: Preserving dignity of patients in a palliative phase entails paying attention to the uniqueness of patients. Migrant patients often have particular needs and wishes that care staff find difficult to address, or meet, and hence the patient's dignity might be at stake. Methods: We performed five focus group discussions with care staff and one with key figures with diverse ethnic backgrounds in the Netherlands (2018–2020). Thematic analysis was used. Results: Care staff creatively safeguarded the patient's dignity in daily care by attending to personal needs concerning intimate body care and providing non-verbal attention. Care staff had difficulties to preserve dignity, when the patient's family engaged themselves in the patient's choices or requests. According to care staff, the interference of family impeded the patient's quality of life or threatened the patient's dignity in the last days, or family member's choices (seemingly) prevailed over the patient's wishes. Care staff safeguarded dignity by catering to cultural or religious practices at the end of life and employing cultural knowledge during decision making. Key figures emphasized to make decisions with patient and family together and to listen more carefully to what patients mean. Bypassing family was experienced as harmful, and repetitively informing family, about, for example, the patient's disease or procedures in the nursing home, was experienced as ineffective. Conclusion: To preserve the patient's dignity, attention is needed for relational aspects of dignity and needs of family, next to patients' individual needs. Impact: Care staff should be supported to employ strategies to engage family of migrant patients, by, for example, acknowledging families' values, such as giving good care to the patient and the importance of religious practices for dignity.

BackgroundA key aim of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients and their families. To help ensure quality of life for the families of patients with migrant backgrounds, this study sought insights into the dignity of informal caregivers in migrant communities. This could improve understanding of family-centered care for migrant patients.MethodsTwenty semi-structured interviews with informal caregivers of Turkish, Moroccan, or Surinamese background living in the Netherlands were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe dignity of the patient and that of their informal caregivers were found to be strongly interrelated. Most important for the dignity of caregivers was ensuring good care for their patients and preserving the patients’ dignity. Ensuring good care involved advocating for good and dignified care and for satisfaction of a patient’s wishes. For many informal caregivers, it also included delivering care to the patient by themselves or together with other family members, despite having to give up part of their own lives. Providing care themselves was part of maintaining a good relationship with the patient; the care was to cater to the patient’s preferences and help preserve the patient’s dignity, and it could be accompanied by valuable aspects such as times for good conversations. Positive interaction between an informal caregiver and a patient positively influenced the informal caregiver’s dignity. Informal caregiver and patient dignity were often compromised simultaneously; when informal caregivers felt healthcare professionals were undermining a patient’s dignity, their own dignity suffered. According to informal caregivers, healthcare professionals can help them preserve dignity by taking seriously their advice about the patient, keeping them informed about the prognosis of the disease and of the patient, and dealing respectfully with differences in values at the end of life.ConclusionThe dignity of migrant patients’ informal caregivers in the last phase of a patient’s life is closely entwined with ensuring good care and dignity for the patient. Healthcare professionals can strengthen the dignity of informal caregivers by supporting their caregiving role.

Background: A key aim of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients and their families. To help ensure quality of life for the families of patients with migrant backgrounds, this study sought insights into the dignity of informal caregivers in migrant communities. This could improve understanding of family-centered care for migrant patients.Methods: Twenty semi-structured interviews with informal caregivers of Turkish, Moroccan, or Surinamese background living in the Netherlands were analyzed thematically.Results: The dignity of the patient and that of their informal caregivers were found to be strongly interrelated. Most important for the dignity of caregivers was ensuring good care for their patients and preserving the patients’ dignity. Ensuring good care involved advocating for good and dignified care and for satisfaction of a patient’s wishes. For many informal caregivers, it also included delivering care to the patient by themselves or together with other family members, despite having to give up part of their own lives. Providing care themselves was part of maintaining a good relationship with the patient; the care was to cater to the patient’s preferences and help preserve the patient’s dignity, and it could be accompanied by valuable aspects such as times for good conversations. Positive interaction between an informal caregiver and a patient positively influenced the informal caregiver’s dignity. Informal caregiver and patient dignity were often compromised simultaneously; when informal caregivers felt healthcare professionals were undermining a patient’s dignity, their own dignity suffered. According to informal caregivers, healthcare professionals can help them preserve dignity by taking seriously their advice about the patient, keeping them informed about the prognosis of the disease and of the patient, and dealing respectfully with differences in values at the end of life. Conclusion: The dignity of migrant patients’ informal caregivers in the last phase of a patient’s life is closely entwined with ensuring good care and dignity for the patient. Healthcare professionals can strengthen the dignity of informal caregivers by supporting their caregiving role.

Wicks and colleagues argue that patient involvement in research is essential.1 We agree that ensuring diversity—so that the interests of well educated, white, middle class people do not dominate—is challenging. Patients from underserved groups are still excluded from scientific research. In many studies migrant patients are explicitly excluded because they do not speak the …