BackgroundSelf-management support is a key component of effective chronic care management, yet in practice appears to be the least implemented and most challenging. This study explores whether and how self-management support is integrated into chronic care approaches in 13 European countries. In addition, it investigates the level of and barriers to implementation of support strategies in health care practice.MethodsWe conducted a review among the 13 participating countries, based on a common data template informed by the Chronic Care Model. Key informants presented a sample of representative chronic care approaches and related self-management support strategies. The cross-country review was complemented by a Dutch case study of health professionals’ views on the implementation of self-management support in practice.ResultsSelf-management support for chronically ill patients remains relatively underdeveloped in Europe. Similarities between countries exist mostly in involved providers (nurses) and settings (primary care). Differences prevail in mode and format of support, and materials used. Support activities focus primarily on patients’ medical and behavioral management, and less on emotional management. According to Dutch providers, self-management support is not (yet) an integral part of daily practice; implementation is hampered by barriers related to, among others, funding, IT and medical culture.ConclusionsAlthough collaborative care for chronic conditions is becoming more important in European health systems, adequate self-management support for patients with chronic disease is far from accomplished in most countries. There is a need for better understanding of how we can encourage both patients and health care providers to engage in productive interactions in daily chronic care practice, which can improve health and social outcomes.

Population ageing is associated with an increase in hospital admissions. Defining the factors that affect the risk of hospital readmission could identify individuals at high risk and enable targeted interventions to be designed. This aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for hospital readmission in elderly people. A systematic review of the literature published in English or Spanish was performed by electronically searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCI and SSCI. Some keywords were aged, elder, readmission, risk, etc. Selection criteria were: prospective cohort studies with suitable statistical analysis such as logistic regression, that explored the relationship between the risk of readmission with clinical, socio-demographic or other factors in elderly patients (aged at least 75 years) admitted to hospital. Studies that fulfilled these criteria were reviewed and data were extracted by two reviewers. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies and prepared a narrative synthesis. We included 12 studies: 11 were selected from 1392 articles identified from the electronic search and one additional reference was selected by manual review. Socio-demographic factors were only explanatory in a few models, while prior admissions and duration of hospital stay were frequently relevant factors in others. Morbidity and functional disability were the most common risk factors. The results demonstrate the need for increased vigilance of elderly patients who are admitted to hospital with specific characteristics that include previous hospital admissions, duration of hospital stay, morbidity and functional disability.

BackgroundChanges in migration patterns that have occurred in recent decades, both quantitative, with an increase in the number of immigrants, and qualitative, due to different causes of migration (work, family reunification, asylum seekers and refugees) require constant u pdating of the analysis of how immigrants access health services. Understanding of the existence of changes in use patterns is necessary to adapt health services to the new socio-demographic reality. The aim of this study is to describe the scientific evidence that assess the differences in the use of health services between immigrant and native populations.MethodsA systematic review of the electronic database MEDLINE (PubMed) was conducted with a search of studies published between June 2013 and February 2016 that addressed the use of health services and compared immigrants with native populations. MeSH terms and key words comprised Health Services Needs and Demands/Accessibility/Disparities/Emigrants and Immigrants/Native/Ethnic Groups. The electronic search was supplemented by a manual search of grey literature. The following information was extracted from each publication: context of the study (place and year), characteristics of the included population (definition of immigrants and their sub-groups), methodological domains (design of the study, source of information, statistical analysis, variables of health care use assessed, measures of need, socio-economic indicators) and main results.ResultsThirty-six publications were included, 28 from Europe and 8 from other countries. Twenty-four papers analysed the use of primary care, 17 the use of specialist services (including hospitalizations or emergency care), 18 considered several levels of care and 11 assessed mental health services. The characteristics of immigrants included country of origin, legal status, reasons for migration, length of stay, different generations and socio-demographic variables and need. In general, use of health services by the immigrants was less than or equal to the native population, although some differences between immigrants were also identified.ConclusionsThis review has identified that immigrants show a general tendency towards a lower use of health services than native populations and that there are significant differences within immigrant sub-groups in terms of their patterns of utilization. Further studies should include information categorizing and evaluating the diversity within the immigrant population.