No abstract

No abstract

Between now and 2030, every country will experience population ageing—a trend that is both pronounced and historically unprecedented. Over the past six decades, countries of the world had experienced only a slight increase in the share of people aged 60 years and older, from 8% to 10%. But in the next four decades, this group is expected to rise to 22% of the total population—a jump from 800 million to 2 billion people. Evidence suggests that cohorts entering older age now are healthier than previous ones. However, progress has been very uneven, as indicated by the wide gaps in population health (measured by life expectancy) between the worst (Sierra Leone) and best (Japan) performing countries, now standing at a difference of 36 years for life expectancy at birth and 15 years for life expectancy at age 60 years. Population ageing poses challenges for countries’ economies, and the health of older populations is of concern. Older people have greater health and long-term care needs than younger people, leading to increased expenditure. They are also less likely to work if they are unhealthy, and could impose an economic burden on families and society. Like everyone else, older people need both physical and economic security, but the burden of providing these securities will be falling on a smaller portion of the population. Pension systems will be stressed and will need reassessment along with retirement policies. Health systems, which have not in the past been oriented toward the myriad health problems and long-term care needs of older people and have not sufficiently emphasised disease prevention, can respond in different ways to the new demographic reality and the associated changes in population health. Along with behavioural adaptations by individuals and businesses, the nature of such policy responses will establish whether population ageing will lead to major macroeconomic difficulties.

No abstract

A comprehensive comparison across European countries is impossible because the number of studies is still limited. Further research should also help to identify barriers regarding the utilization of health care services by migrants.

No abstract

BackgroundUndocumented migrants face particular challenges in accessing healthcare services in many European countries. The aim of this study was to systematically review the academic literature on the utilization of healthcare services by undocumented migrants in Europe.MethodsThe databases Embase, Medline, Global Health and Cinahl Plus were searched systematically to identify quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies published in 2007–2017.ResultsA total of 908 articles were retrieved. Deletion of duplicates left 531. After screening titles, abstracts and full texts according to pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 29 articles were included in the review. Overall, quantitative studies showed an underutilization of different types of healthcare services by undocumented migrants. Qualitative studies reported that, even when care was received, it was often inadequate or insufficient, and that many undocumented migrants were unfamiliar with their entitlements and faced barriers in utilizing healthcare services.ConclusionsAlthough it is difficult to generalize findings from the included studies due to methodological differences, they provide further evidence that undocumented migrants in Europe face particular problems in utilizing healthcare services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2838-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background To systematically review the evidence published in systematic reviews (SR) on the health impact of staying at home, social distancing and lockdown measures. We followed a systematic review approach, in line with PRISMA guidelines. Methods In October 2020, we searched the databases Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Web of Science, using a pre-defined search strategy. Results The literature search yielded an initial list of 2172 records. After screening of titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening, 51 articles were retained and included in the analysis. All of them referred to the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The direct health impact that was covered in the greatest number (25) of SR related to mental health, followed by 13 SR on healthcare delivery and 12 on infection control. The predominant areas of indirect health impacts covered by the included studies relate to the economic and social impacts. Only three articles mentioned the negative impact on education. Conclusions The focus of SR so far has been uneven, with mental health receiving the most attention. The impact of measures to contain the spread of the virus can be direct and indirect, having both intended and unintended consequences. Highlights