BackgroundThe consequences of lifestyle-related disease represent a major burden for the individual as well as for society at large. Individual preventive health checks to the general population have been suggested as a mean to reduce the burden of lifestyle-related diseases, though with mixed evidence on effectiveness. Several systematic reviews, on the other hand, suggest that health checks targeting people at high risk of chronic lifestyle-related diseases may be more effective. The evidence is however very limited. To effectively target people at high risk of lifestyle-related disease, there is a substantial need to advance and implement evidence-based health strategies and interventions that facilitate the identification and management of people at high risk. This paper reports on a non-randomized pilot study carried out to test the acceptability, feasibility and short-term effects of a healthcare intervention in primary care designed to systematically identify persons at risk of developing lifestyle-related disease or who engage in health-risk behavior, and provide targeted and coherent preventive services to these individuals.MethodsThe intervention took place over a three-month period from September 2016 to December 2016. Taking a two-pronged approach, the design included both a joint and a targeted intervention. The former was directed at the entire population, while the latter specifically focused on patients at high risk of a lifestyle-related disease and/or who engage in health-risk behavior. The intervention was facilitated by a digital support system. The evaluation of the pilot will comprise both quantitative and qualitative research methods. All outcome measures are based on validated instruments and aim to provide results pertaining to intervention acceptability, feasibility, and short-term effects.DiscussionThis pilot study will provide a solid empirical base from which to plan and implement a full-scale randomized study with the central aim of determining the efficacy of a preventive health intervention.Trial registrationRegistered at Clinical Trial Gov (Unique Protocol ID: TOFpilot2016). Registered 29 April 2016. The study adheres to the SPIRIT guidelines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0820-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We aimed to obtain a greater understanding of the characteristics of social relations and experiences of social isolation among homeless people, substance users and other socially marginalized users of shelters and drop-in centres in Denmark. Based on in-depth interviews with 46 shelter/centre users, we created a typology of five groups: the socially related and content, the satisfied loners, the socially related but lonely, the socially isolated and the in-betweens. The characteristics of the groups did not seem related to interviewees' degree of social marginalization. Professionals played a pivotal role, providing social support and help to improve interviewees' life circumstances. The findings provide insight into the social lives of shelter/centre users that is useful for developing initiatives to improve their social wellbeing.

No abstract

The poor self-rated health among socially marginalized is strongly associated with massive social problems, poor living conditions and poor well-being. This study elucidates the need for more broadly based and holistic initiatives by both the health sector and the social services, incorporating health promotion initiatives into social work.

Background Patients with mental disorders have an increased risk of developing somatic disorders, just as they have a higher risk of dying from them. These patients often report feeling devaluated and rejected by health professionals in the somatic health care system, and increasing evidence shows that disparities in health care provision contribute to poor health outcomes. The aim of this review was to map and synthesize literature on somatic health professionals’ stigmatization toward patients with mental disorders. Methods We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and carried out a systematic search in three databases: Cinahl, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO in May–June 2019. Peer-reviewed articles published in English or Scandinavian languages during 2008–2019 were reviewed according to title, abstract and full-text reading. We organized and analyzed data using NVivo. Results A total of 137 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were reviewed and categorized as observational studies (n = 73) and intervention studies (n = 64). A majority of studies (N = 85) focused on patients with an unspecified number of mental disorders, while 52 studies focused on specific diagnoses, primarily schizophrenia (n = 13), self-harm (n = 13), and eating disorders (n = 9). Half of the studies focused on health students (n = 64), primarily nursing students (n = 26) and medical students (n = 25), while (n = 66) focused on health care professionals, primarily emergency staff (n = 16) and general practitioners (n = 13). Additionally, seven studies focused on both health professionals and students. A detailed characterization of the identified intervention studies was conducted, resulting in eight main types of interventions. Conclusions The large number of studies identified in this review suggests that stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors toward patients with mental disorders is a worldwide challenge within a somatic health care setting. For more targeted interventions, there is a need for further research on underexposed mental diagnoses and knowledge on whether specific health professionals have a more stigmatizing attitude or behavior toward specific mental disorders.