Aims. There is a need of more quantitative standardised data to compare local Mental Health Systems (MHSs) across international jurisdictions. Problems related to terminological variability and commensurability in the evaluation of services hamper like-with-like comparisons and hinder the development of work in this area. This study was aimed to provide standard assessment and comparison of MHS in selected local areas in Europe, contributing to a better understanding of MHS and related allocation of resources at local level and to lessen the scarcity in standard service comparison in Europe. This study is part of the Seventh Framework programme REFINEMENT (Research on Financing Systems' Effect on the Quality of Mental Health Care in Europe) project.Methods. A total of eight study areas from European countries with different systems of care (Austria, England, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Romania, Spain) were analysed using a standard open-access classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services for Long Term Care in Europe, DESDE-LTC). All publicly funded services universally accessible to adults (≥18 years) with a psychiatric disorder were coded. Care availability, diversity and capacity were compared across these eight local MHS.Results. The comparison of MHS revealed more community-oriented delivery systems in the areas of England (Hampshire) and Southern European countries (Verona -Italy and Girona -Spain). Community-oriented systems with a higher proportion of hospital care were identified in Austria (Industrieviertel) and Scandinavian countries (Sør-Trøndelag in Norway and Helsinki-Uusimaa in Finland), while Loiret (France) was considered as a predominantly hospital-based system. The MHS in Suceava (Romania) was still in transition to community care.Conclusions. There is a significant variation in care availability and capacity across MHS of local areas in Europe. This information is relevant for understanding the process of implementation of community-oriented mental health care in local areas. Standard comparison of care provision in local areas is important for context analysis and policy planning.

Excessive administrative spending in local governments has been a concern in the public debate in Norway. Administration takes resources away from welfare services such as primary education and care for the elderly. Since administrative spending varies considerably between local governments, a study of the political and economic factors involved is warranted. The central hypothesis is that the administrators will have more power relative to the politicians when political control is divided between parties. Estimation of a demand model of administration added political structure shows strong empirical correlations between types of coalition governments and socialist controlled governments and the level of administrative spending. Divided political control strengthens the hands of the agenda setting bureaucrats.

Introduction: Mental health care is a critical area to better understand integrated care and to pilot the different components of the integrated care model. However, there is an urgent need for better tools to compare and understand the context of integrated mental health care in Europe.

Background: Surveys suggest that most people prefer to die at home. Trends in causes of mortality and age composition could limit the feasibility of home deaths. Aim: To examine the effect of changes in decedents' age, gender and cause of death on the pattern of place of death using data on all deaths in Norway for the period 1987-2011. Design: Population-based observation study comparing raw, predicted, as well as standardised shares of place of death isolating the effect of demographic and epidemiological changes. The analysis was bolstered with joinpoint regression to detect shifts in trends in standardised shares. Setting/participants: All deaths (1,091,303) in Norway 1987-2011 by age, gender and cause of death. Place of death at home, hospital, nursing home and other. Results: Fewer people died in hospitals (34.1% vs 46.2%) or at home (14.2% vs 18.3%), and more in nursing homes (45.5% vs 29.5%) in 2011 than in 1987. Much of the trend can be explained by demographic and epidemiological changes. Ageing of the population and the epidemiological shift represented by the declining share of deaths from circulatory diseases (31.4% vs 48.4%) compared to the increase in deaths from neoplasms (26.9% vs 21.8%) and mental/behavioural diseases (4.4% vs 1.2%) are the strongest drivers in the shift in place of death. Joinpoint regression shows important differences between categories. Conclusion: Demographic and epidemiological changes go a long way in explaining shifts in place of death. The analyses reveal substantial differences in trends between different decedent groups.

BackgroundPsychiatric readmissions have been studied at length. However, knowledge about how environmental and health system characteristics affect readmission rates is scarce. This paper systemically reviews and discusses the impact of health and social systems as well as environmental characteristics for readmission after discharge from inpatient care for patients with a psychiatric diagnosis.MethodsComprehensive literature searches were conducted in the electronic bibliographic databases Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, ProQuest Health Management and OpenGrey. In addition, Google Scholar was utilised. Relevant publications published between January 1990 and June 2014 were included. No restrictions regarding language or publication status were imposed. A qualitative synthesis of the included studies was performed. Variables describing system and environmental characteristics were grouped into three groups: those capturing regulation, financing system and governance; those capturing capacity, organisation and structure; and those capturing environmental variables.ResultsOf the 734 unique articles identified in the original search, 35 were included in the study. There is a limited number of studies on psychiatric readmissions and their association with environmental and health system characteristics. Even though the review reveals an extensive list of characteristics studied, most characteristics appear in a very limited number of articles. The most frequently studied characteristics are related to location (local area, district/region/country). In most cases area differences were found, providing strong indication that the risk of readmission not only relates to patient characteristics but also to system and/or environmental factors that vary between areas. The literature also points in the direction of a negative association of institutional length of stay and community aftercare with readmission for psychiatric patients.ConclusionThis review shows that analyses of system level variables are scarce. Furthermore they differ with respect to purpose, choice of system characteristics and the way these characteristics are measured. The lack of studies looking at the relationship between readmissions and provider payment models is striking. Without the link to provider payment models and other health system characteristics related to regulation, financing system and governance structure it becomes more difficult to draw policy implications from these analyses.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1099-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.