Search

Abstract Background Racism in the healthcare system has become a burgeoning focus in health policy-making and research. Existing research has shown both interpersonal and structural forms of racism limiting access to quality healthcare for racialised healthcare users. Nevertheless, little is known about the specifics of racism in the inpatient sector, specifically hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to map the evidence on racial discrimination experienced by people receiving treatment in inpatient settings (hospitals and rehabilitation facilities) or their caregivers in high-income countries, focusing specifically on whether intersectional axes of discrimination have been taken into account when describing these experiences. Methods Based on the conceptual framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley, this scoping review surveyed existing research on racism and racial discrimination in inpatient care in high-income countries published between 2013 and 2023. The software Rayyan was used to support the screening process while MAXQDA was used for thematic coding. Results Forty-seven articles were included in this review. Specifics of the inpatient sector included different hospitalisation, admission and referral rates within and across hospitals; the threat of racial discrimination from other healthcare users; and the spatial segregation of healthcare users according to ethnic, religious or racialised criteria. While most articles described some interactions between race and other social categories in the sample composition, the framework of intersectionality was rarely considered explicitly during analysis. Discussion While the USA continue to predominate in discussions, other high-income countries including Canada, Australia and the UK also examine racism in their own healthcare systems. Absent from the literature are studies from a wider range of European countries as well as of racialised and disadvantaged groups other than refugees or recent immigrants. Research in this area would also benefit from an engagement with approaches to intersectionality in public health to produce a more nuanced understanding of the interactions of racism with other axes of discrimination. As inpatient care exhibits a range of specific structures, future research and policy-making ought to consider these specifics to develop targeted interventions, including training for non-clinical staff and robust, transparent and accessible complaint procedures.

Abstract Background The diversity of the population is associated with different needs and expectations towards palliative and hospice care. Current approaches available in Germany generally fall short in addressing the role of diversity and intersectionality in this health care setting and healthcare facilities struggle with organizational difficulties and missing information on how to implement corresponding diversity-sensitive measures. The present study aims to develop a hands-on manual that enables providers of hospice and palliative care to implement measures and strategies for diversity-sensitive care, while taking into account the perspective of healthcare users and explicitly including vulnerable and minority patient groups. Methods A participatory approach is used to co-create the aforementioned manual using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. First, based on a systematic analysis of existing measures, an initial draft of the manual will be developed. Subsequently, an online survey will be conducted among all hospice and palliative care providers in Germany (n = 2,823). Based on the results of the survey, 12 to 15 qualitative problem-centered interviews will be conducted with employees of selected providers who took part in the survey. Results of the survey and the qualitative interviews will be integrated and analyzed. In parallel to the development and research process, a comprehensive dissemination strategy will be developed. Discussion The manual will assist providers of palliative and hospice care in determining goals, needs, and available resources in order to utilize patient-centered and diversity-sensitive measures to meet a wide range of expectations. It can also be informative for providers in other countries. The participatory co-development approach ensures the practical relevance of the manual, while the mixed-methods design allows for targeted input on the manual’s usability, acceptance, and viability as a supportive tool.

Abstract Background Populations have varying needs and expectations concerning health care that result from diversity characteristics such as a migrant background, gender identity, disability, and age. These needs and expectations must be considered to ensure adequate utilization and quality of health services. Approaches to address diversity do exist, however, little is known about the extent to which they are implemented by health care facilities. The present study aims to examine, which measures and structures hospitals in Germany employ to address diversity, as well as which barriers they encounter in doing so. Methods A mixed-mode survey among administration managers of all registered German hospitals (excluding rehabilitation hospitals; n = 1125) was conducted between May and October 2019 using pen-and-paper and online questionnaires. Results were analyzed descriptively. Results Data from n = 112 hospitals were available. While 57.1% of hospitals addressed diversity in their mission statement and 59.9% included diversity considerations in quality management, dedicated working groups and diversity commissioners were less prevalent (15.2% each). The majority of hospitals offered multi-lingual admission and exit interviews (59.8%), treatments or therapies (57.1%), but only few had multi-lingual meal plans (12.5%) and seminars or presentations (11.6%). While 41.1% of the hospitals offered treatment and/or nursing exclusively by staff of the same sex, only 17.0% offered group therapies for both sexes separately. According to the managers, the main barriers were a lack of financial resources (54.5%), a lack of incentives from the funding providers (49.1%), and organizational difficulties (45.5%). Other reported barriers were a lack of conviction of the necessity among decision makers (28.6%) and a lack of motivation among staff members (19.6%). Conclusions Administration managers from only a small proportion of hospitals participated in our survey on diversity sensitivity. Even hospitals of those who did are currently not adequately addressing the diversity of staff members and patients. Most hospitals address diversity on an ideational level, practical measures are not widely implemented. Existing measures suggest that most hospitals have no overarching concept to address diversity in a broader sense. The main reported barriers relate to economic aspects, a lack of support in organizing and implementing corresponding measures and a lack of awareness or motivation.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations residing in confined settings such as refugee shelters: Physical distancing measures were challenging to implement in shelters due to shared rooms or communal use of kitchens and sanitary facilities, which increased the risk of infections. Meanwhile, individuals’ capabilities for individual protection strategies were severely impaired by the structure of the shelters. Consequently, shelters had the duty to develop and implement strategies for the prevention and handling of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of refugees, NGO employees, and shelter directors regarding COVID-19-related measures in German refugee shelters. The study aimed to identify challenges and conflicts arising from implemented measures, as well as expectations for improved support during the pandemic. Methods Semi-structured and narrative interviews were conducted with 6 refugees, 6 facility managers, 12 NGO staff, and 2 social service agency staff from February to August 2022. Qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze the data, identifying overarching themes and codes. Results The study uncovered challenges and conflicts resulting from pandemic measures, particularly mass quarantine orders, within refugee shelters. Lack of transparency and ineffective communication worsened tensions, with refugees feeling distressed and anxious. The quarantine experience had a negative impact on refugees’ mental health, which was exacerbated by limited social interaction and leisure-time activities. Shelter managers encountered administrative challenges when implementing measures due to facility constraints and limited resources, while NGO employees encountered obstacles in providing immediate assistance due to legal regulations and a lack of cooperation from shelter managers. Conclusions The study highlights that shelters are problematic institutions from a public health perspective. It shows the importance of implementing customized pandemic interventions in refugee shelters that take account of the diverse needs and experiences of both refugee and staff. To achieve this, we recommend to establish an ethics committee and involve various stakeholders in decision-making processes. Additionally, enhancing information dissemination to promote transparency and public understanding of measures is crucial. These insights can help develop comprehensive and effective pandemic plans for refugee shelters, ensuring better preparedness for future public health crises.

Many European studies report lower participation in colorectal cancer screening among migrants than non-migrants. A major limitation of these studies is that usually, the heterogeneity of migrants cannot be accounted for. The aim of this investigation was to examine differences in the utilization of fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy between non-migrants and the five largest migrant groups residing in Austria using data from the Austrian Health Interview Survey 2019. The two outcomes were compared between non-migrants and migrants using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for socioeconomic and health variables. Migrants from a Yugoslav successor state (OR = 0.61; 95%-CI: 0.44–0.83), Turkish (OR = 0.35; 95%-CI: 0.22–0.55), Hungarian (OR = 0.37; 95%-CI: 0.16–0.82) and German migrants (OR = 0.70; 95%-CI: 0.51–0.98) were less likely to have used a fecal occult blood test compared to non-migrants. Participation in colonoscopy was lower among Turkish migrants (OR = 0.42; 95%-CI: 0.27–0.67) and migrants from a Yugoslav successor state (OR = 0.56; 95%-CI: 0.42–0.75) than among non-migrants. The findings are consistent with studies from other countries and highlight barriers migrants face in accessing the health care system. To address these barriers, the heterogeneity of the population must be taken into account when developing educational materials in order to promote informed decisions about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening.

Abstract Background The perceived ability to influence an infection with SARS-CoV-2 has an impact on compliance with protective measures. Factors influencing perceived controllability are not yet fully known. The aim of this study was to identify intersectional differences in perceived controllability. Insights into these intersectional differences could help to develop user-centered strategies to improve the acceptance of protective measures. Methods Data from the seventh wave of the German Ageing Survey (DEAS) was used to investigate differences in the population regarding the perceived controllability. The role of socio-demographic and socio-economic predictors was investigated using multivariable linear regression modeling. Intersectional differences were examined using interaction terms. Results Information on 4,823 respondents aged 46 to 100 years were available, of which 50.9% were female. Migration status (yes vs. no: β = -0.27; 95%-CI = -0.48,-0.06), education level (high vs. low: β = 0.31; 95%-CI: 0.08, 0.55) and employment status (retired vs. employed: β = 0.33; 95%-CI: 0.19, 0.48) were found to be significantly influencing perceived controllability. Interaction effects were found with respect to sex and migration status, with migrant women rating their perceived controllability lower than non-migrant women (β = -0.51; 95%-CI = -0.80, -0.21), while no differences were evident between migrant and non-migrant men (β = -0.02; 95%-CI = -0.32, 0.28). Further intersectional differences were not observed. Conclusions The results show that intersectional differences in perceived controllability occur especially between migrant and non-migrant women. Possible causes may lie in language barriers, which in connection with lower health literacy may affect perceived controllability. Dedicated efforts to improve controllability among older adults, those with lower educational attainment and migrant women are warranted.

Colorectal cancer screening can contribute to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Findings on disparities in the utilization of colorectal cancer screening between migrants and non-migrants have been inconsistent, with some studies reporting lower, and some higher utilization among migrants. The aim of the present study was to examine potential disparities in fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy among migrants in Germany. Data from a population survey on 11,757 men and women aged ≥50 years is used. Using multivariable logistic regression, the utilization of fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy was compared between non-migrants, migrants from EU countries and migrants from non-EU countries, adjusting for socio-economic factors and also taking into account intersectional differences by sex and age. The study shows that migrants from the EU (adjusted OR = 0.73; 95%-CI: 0.57, 0.94) and from non-EU countries (adjusted OR = 0.39; 95%-CI: 0.31, 0.50) were less likely to utilize fecal occult blood testing than non-migrants. No disparities for the use of colonoscopy were observed. The findings are in line with studies from other countries and can be indicative of different barriers migrants encounter in the health system. Adequate strategies taking into account the diversity of migrants are needed to support informed decision-making among this population group.

Abstract Background Vaccination against COVID-19 has been available in Germany since December 2020. However, about 30% of the population report not wanting to be vaccinated. In order to increase the willingness of the population to get vaccinated, data on the acceptance of vaccination and its influencing factors are necessary. Little is known about why individuals refuse the COVID-19 vaccination. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons leading to rejecting vaccination, based on posts from three social media sites. Methods The German-language versions of Instagram, Twitter and YouTube were searched regarding negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Data was extracted until a saturation effect could be observed. The data included posts created from January 20, 2020 to May 2, 2021. This time frame roughly covers the period from the first reports of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 up to the general availability of vaccines against COVID-19 in Germany. We used an interpretive thematic approach to analyze the data and to inductively generate codes, subcategories and categories. Results Based on 333 posts written by 323 contributing users, we identified six main categories of reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination: Low perceived benefit of vaccination, low perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, health concerns, lack of information, systemic mistrust and spiritual or religious reasons. The analysis reveals a lack of information among users and the spread of misinformation with regard to COVID-19 and vaccination. Users feel inadequately informed about vaccination or do not understand the information available. These information gaps may be related to information not being sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the target group. In addition to limited information for the general population, misinformation on the internet can also be an important reason for refusing vaccination. Conclusions The study emphasizes the relevance of providing trustworthy and quality-assured information on COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination to all population groups. In addition, vaccinations should be easily accessible in order to promote the population’s willingness to be vaccinated.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic, as well as efforts to prevent its spread, have had a strong impact on the delivery of rehabilitative services in Germany. While several studies have addressed the impact of these developments on health service providers and COVID-19 patients, little is known about its impact on patients in need of rehabilitative treatment because of other conditions. This study aims to identify expectations, concerns and experiences of rehabilitation patients related to service delivery in this situation. Methods Using a qualitative study design, user posts from six German online forums between March and Mid-November 2020 were systematically searched with respect to experiences, concerns and expectations of health care users toward receiving rehabilitative treatment. We used qualitative content analysis with inductive coding as our methodological approach. Results Users fearing physical or psychological impairment were concerned about not receiving timely or effective treatment due to closed hospitals, reduced treatments and limited admissions. In contrast, patients more concerned about getting infected with COVID-19 worried about the effectiveness of protective measures and being denied postponement of treatment by the funding bodies. During their stay, some patients reported feeling isolated due to contact restrictions and did not feel their treatment was effective, while others reported being satisfied and praised hospitals for their efforts to ensure the safety of the patients. Many patients reported communication problems before and during their treatment, including concerns about the safety and effectiveness of their treatment, as well as financial concerns and worries about future treatments. Several users felt that their concerns were disregarded by the hospitals and the funding bodies, leaving them feeling distressed, insecure and dissatisfied. Conclusions While some users report only minor concerns related to the pandemic and its impact on rehabilitation, others report strong concerns relating not only to their own health and safety, but also to financial aspects and their ability to work. Many users feel ignored and disregarded, showing a strong need for more coordinated strategies and improved communication specifically with funding bodies like health insurance companies and the German pension funds.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on health care processes. Precautions such as restrictions imposed on visitors and social distancing have led to multiple challenges, particularly in terms of communication. Using the case of nursing, palliative and hospice care facilities in Germany and drawing on agenda-setting theory, the present study aims to shed light on how health care facilities use their websites to inform (potential) health care users about changes in regulations, new protective measures implemented and about recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The websites of nursing, palliative and hospice care facilities in Germany were examined using qualitative document analysis and qualitative content analysis. A total of 138 websites was analysed in the study. The data gathered includes all information about COVID-19 on these websites published from the beginning of March until August 15, 2020. Results Facilities show similarities in adhering to the measures taken by the authorities to restrict the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to protect vulnerable patients and employees. All facilities urged the public to avoid paying visits to patients in facilities unless there was an emergency; however, visiting procedures in practice varied by types of facilities. For optimal communication, telephone and especially video calls were the options preferred by health care providers and health care users. Facilities made great efforts to prevent emotional stress and to strengthen resilience among all stakeholders. Transparency was adopted by many facilities in order to build the public’s trust. Conclusions The agenda of health care facilities has been seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study sheds light on the strategies developed by facilities, their efforts to increase emotional resilience among health care staff and health care users, the ethical guidelines they have adopted regarding privacy policies as well as how these themes are communicated via the facilities’ websites. The results can inform other health care facilities about how websites can be used as essential communication tools in times of public health crises.

Abstract Background COVID-19 caused by a new form of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) first appeared in China end of 2019 and quickly spread to all counties of the world. To slow down the spread of the virus and to limit the pressure on the health care systems, different regulations and recommendations have been implemented by authorities, comprising amongst others the closure of all entertainment venues and social distancing. These measures have received mixed reactions, particularly from young individuals, with many not following available advice. Drawing on the information in social media discussion forums, the present study explores the reasons why people ignore the orders and recommendations of the authorities and why the authorities are unable to produce a shared sense of inclusion concerning protective measures against the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods Three open-access social media forums (Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube comments) were systematically searched with respect to COVID-19-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours of individuals. The data was retrieved in the first 3 weeks of March 2020. Qualitative document analysis and qualitative content analysis were used as the methodical approach. The data was reviewed by all authors and jointly interpreted to minimise inconsistencies. Results The study reveals that reasons such as information pollution on social media, the persistence of uncertainty about the rapidly spreading virus, the impact of the social environment on the individual, and fear of unemployment associated with inequality in the distribution of income lead people to ignore the orders and recommendations of the authorities. The findings suggest that government representatives and politicians could not produce a shared sense of inclusion concerning protective measures against the COVID-19 outbreak, due to not building trust among the public and taking concrete economic steps to satisfy them. Conclusion In uncertain crises, transparency in the presentation of information and government policies emerge as influential determinants in creating social susceptibility and solidarity. The differences between social classes constitute one of the important factors that affect the decision-making mechanisms of individuals in determining the necessary steps to be undertaken in times of crisis.

Objective To investigate which measures are recommended by guidelines on prevention and management of infectious disease outbreaks in refugee shelters, how outbreaks have been dealt with in these facilities in the past and how measures taken compare with the recommendations identified in the literature.Design, data sources and eligibility criteria The review comprised German and English language literature on refugees residing in shelters located in high-income countries, published between 1990 and 2021. We searched PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science.Data extraction and synthesis We extracted information concerning the characteristics of the setting and the study population, measures for outbreak prevention and reported difficulties with implementing these measures. The findings were evaluated using descriptive statistics and were narratively summarised.Results Of a total of 1162 publications, 36 were included in the review, of which 19 were original research articles and 17 were guidelines/commentaries. In the guidelines, 37 different measures of infection control were mentioned. Among those, social distancing and isolation or quarantine were mentioned most frequently. In the outbreak reports, 27 different measures were reported, of which testing was reported most often. Different reasons why recommendations are difficult to implement in shelters were described, which are related to space, equipment, staff and financial constraints. Discrepancies between recommendations and actual practice mostly relate to the lack of preparation for outbreaks and the lack of appropriate measures to ensure intersectoral cooperation.Conclusions Recommendations on infection control and outbreak management and the measures actually taken in refugee shelters differ considerably. Among others, this results from a lack of intersectoral cooperation between state ministries, municipal health offices and the administration of the facilities as well as from guidelines not sufficiently tailored to the characteristics of refugee shelters.

In all regions of the world, musculoskeletal disorders are a significant contributor to the burden of chronic illnesses. The effectiveness of treatments, such as rehabilitation, may vary intersectionally across demographic and other categories. The present study examines this intersectionality with respect to a lack of improvement in health conditions after rehabilitation of patients in Germany. Routine data from 298,617 patients aged 18–65 years residing in Germany who received rehabilitation because of arthropathies, dorsopathies, or soft tissue disorders during 2006–2016 were included in the analysis. Odds of the outcome were compared across demographic groups and across diagnostic sub-groups by means of multivariable logistic regression. Interaction terms were included to examine intersectional differences across these groups and over time. Women were more likely than men to have an impairment despite treatment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.11; 95%-CI = 1.08, 1.13). In addition, patients in semi-skilled/unskilled employment were at higher odds of a poor outcome compared to patients in skilled positions (aOR = 1.13; 95%-CI = 1.10–1.17). Nationality also affected health care outcomes, with Turkish nationals and nationals from a Yugoslav successor state having higher odds of a poor outcome than Germans (aOR = 1.56; 95%-CI = 1.45–1.67 and aOR = 1.52; 95%-CI = 1.41–1.65, respectively). The findings highlight the importance of an intersectional perspective in health research and practice and can support the development of strategies and measures that aim to reduce disparities in health care.

Abstract Background Studies from European and non-European countries have shown that migrants utilize cervical cancer screening less often than non-migrants. Findings from Germany are inconsistent. This can be explained by several limitations of existing investigations, comprising residual confounding and data which is restricted to only some regions of the country. Using data from a large-scale and nationwide population survey and applying the Andersen Model of Health Services Use as the theoretical framework, the aim of the present study was to examine the role that different predisposing, enabling and need factors have for the participation of migrant and non-migrant women in cervical cancer screening in Germany. Methods We used data from the ‘German Health Update 2014/2015’ survey on n = 12,064 women ≥20 years of age. The outcome of interest was the participation in cancer screening (at least once in lifetime vs. no participation). The outcome was compared between the three population groups of non-migrants, migrants from EU countries and migrants from non-EU countries. We employed multivariable logistic regression to examine the role of predisposing, enabling and need factors. Results Non-EU and EU migrant women reported a lower utilization of cervical cancer screening (50.1 and 52.7%, respectively) than non-migrant women (57.2%). The differences also remained evident after adjustment for predisposing, enabling and need factors. The respective adjusted odds ratios (OR) for non-EU and EU migrants were OR = 0.67 (95%-CI = 0.55–0.81) and OR = 0.80 (95%-CI = 0.66–0.97), respectively. Differences between migrants and non-migrants were particularly pronounced for younger age groups. Self-rated health was associated with participation in screening only in non-migrants, with a poorer health being indicative of a low participation in cancer screening. Conclusions The disparities identified are in line with findings from studies conducted in other countries and are indicative of different obstacles this population group encounters in the health system. Implementing patient-oriented health care through diversity-sensitive health services is necessary to support informed decision-making.

Vaccinations are a core element of infection control. Migrants have been reported to have low vaccination rates for many infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Still, determinants of migrants’ uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations are not sufficiently clear. The present study addresses this gap and examines the respective influence of three potential determinants: barriers to access, attitude towards vaccinations in general, and towards COVID-19 vaccines. The study uses a cross-sectional online survey among migrants in Germany. The questionnaire assessed the aforementioned determinants using standardized tools. Information on 204 individuals was available. The vaccination rate in the sample was 80%. Vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated respondents reported more often the absence of financial barriers (71% (95%CI: 64–73%) vs. 45% (95%CI: 28–63%)), short waiting times (51% (95%CI: 43–59%) vs. 22% (95%CI: 5–38%)), and the presence of a vaccination center close-by (91.5% (95%CI: 87–96%) vs. 69.7% (95%CI: 54–85%)). Concerning COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, the majority of respondents (68%) agreed that the vaccine is important. Unvaccinated respondents more often feared side effects, were convinced that the vaccine is not safe, and assumed that COVID-19 is not dangerous. Correspondingly, acceptance of vaccinations in general was higher among vaccinated respondents. In line with findings from previous studies, our survey found that all three determinants seem to influence migrants’ vaccination status while their overall vaccination rate was comparable to the general population. Hence, migration background per se does not sufficiently explain vaccine acceptance and further research is needed to identify subgroups of migrants that should be specifically addressed to increase their vaccination rate.

Patients in long-term, palliative, and hospice care are at increased risk of a severe course of COVID-19. For purposes of infection control, different strategies have been implemented by the respective health care facilities, also comprising visitation and other forms of contact restrictions. The aim of the present study was to examine how these strategies are perceived by family members of patients in these settings. An exploratory, qualitative approach was used to examine perceptions of policies and strategies using partially standardized guided interviews analyzed by means of a thematic approach. Interviews were conducted with 10 family members of long-term, palliative, and hospice care patients. Interviewees were between 30 and 75 years old. Because of the pandemic-related measures, respondents felt that their basic rights were restricted. Results indicate that perceptions of strategies and interventions in long-term, palliative, and hospice care facilities are particularly influenced by the opportunity to visit and the number of visitors allowed. Strict bans on visits, particularly during end-of-life care, are associated with a strong emotional burden for patients and family members alike. Aside from sufficient opportunities for visits, virtual communication technologies need to be utilized to facilitate communication between patients, families, and caregivers.