The objective of the present study was to investigate whether the reliability of tenderness evaluation can be increased by using a new technique called "pressure-controlled palpation" (pcp). The technique has been made possible by a newly invented piece of equipment called a palpometer, with which a pressure-sensitive plastic film attached to the index finger records the pressure exerted. In 15 patients with chronic tension-type headache and in 15 healthy volunteers, 2 investigators studied myofascial tenderness using conventional palpation and pressure-controlled palpation. Tenderness was scored on a 4-point scale in each of the examined pericranial regions. The sum of tenderness scores recorded by two observers using conventional palpation differed significantly (p = 0.0003), while results did not differ between observers using pressure-controlled palpation (p = 0.89). During palpation with seven different pressure intensities a positive and linear relation between pressure and pain intensity was found (p = 0.00006). Pain intensity reported by the subjects correlated highly with tenderness scored by the observer (rs = 0.95, p < 0.0001). These results demonstrate for the first time that tenderness scores can be compared between observers if palpation pressure is controlled. Pressure-controlled palpation represents a major improvement on current palpation techniques and should be standard in future research on myofascial pain disorders.

BackgroundRefugees are a particularly vulnerable group in relation to the development of mental illness and many may have been subjected to torture or other traumatic experiences. General practitioners are gatekeepers for access to several parts of the psychiatric system and knowledge of their patients’ refugee background is crucial to secure adequate care. The aim of this study is to investigate how general practitioners experience providing care to refugees with mental health problems.MethodsThe study was conducted as part of an EU project on European Best Practices in Access, Quality and Appropriateness of Health Services for Immigrants in Europe (EUGATE). Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine general practitioners in the vicinity of Copenhagen purposively selected from areas with a high proportion of immigrants. The analysis of the interviews is inspired by qualitative content analysis.ResultsOne of the main themes identified in the analysis is communication. This includes the use of professional interpreters and that communication entails more than sharing a common language. Quality of care is another theme that emerges and includes awareness of possible trauma history, limited possibilities for refugees to participate in certain treatments due to language barriers and feelings of hopelessness in the general practitioners. The general practitioners may also choose different referral pathways for refugees and they report that their patients lack understanding regarding the differences between psychological problems and physical symptoms.ConclusionGeneral practitioners experience that providing care to refugees differs from providing care for patients from the majority population. The different strategies employed by the general practitioners in the health care treatment of refugees may be the result of the great diversity in the organisation of general practice in Denmark and the lack of a national strategy in the health care management of refugees. The findings from this study suggest that the development of conversational models for general practitioners including points to be aware of in the treatment of refugee patients may serve as a support in the management of refugee patients in primary care.

Although mental health service delivery varies between and within European countries, consistent challenges exist in the experiences of mental health professionals delivering services in communities with high proportions of immigrants. Improvements to practice should include training in reaching appropriate diagnoses, a focus on building trusting relationships and measures to counter marginalisation.

BackgroundEuropean Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants.MethodsA total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants.ResultsThe scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e.g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e.g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants.ConclusionsExperts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.