Low socioeconomic status (SES) is generally associated with high psychiatric morbidity, more disability, and poorer access to health care. Among psychiatric disorders, depression exhibits a more controversial association with SES. The authors carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the magnitude, shape, and modifiers of such an association. The search found 51 prevalence studies, five incidence studies, and four persistence studies meeting the criteria. A random effects model was applied to the odds ratio of the lowest SES group compared with the highest, and meta-regression was used to assess the dose-response relation and the influence of covariates. Results indicated that low-SES individuals had higher odds of being depressed (odds ratio = 1.81, p < 0.001), but the odds of a new episode (odds ratio = 1.24, p = 0.004) were lower than the odds of persisting depression (odds ratio = 2.06, p < 0.001). A dose-response relation was observed for education and income. Socioeconomic inequality in depression is heterogeneous and varies according to the way psychiatric disorder is measured, to the definition and measurement of SES, and to contextual features such as region and time. Nonetheless, the authors found compelling evidence for socioeconomic inequality in depression. Strategies for tackling inequality in depression are needed, especially in relation to the course of the disorder.

BackgroundHealth services across Europe provide health care for migrant patients every day. However, little systematic research has explored the views and experiences of health care professionals in different European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the difficulties professionals experience in their service when providing such care and what they consider constitutes good practice to overcome these problems or limit their negative impact on the quality of care.MethodsStructured interviews with open questions and case vignettes were conducted with health care professionals working in areas with high proportion of migrant populations in 16 countries. In each country, professionals in nine primary care practices, three accident and emergency hospital departments, and three community mental health services (total sample = 240) were interviewed about their views and experiences in providing care for migrant patients, i.e. from first generation immigrant populations. Answers were analysed using thematic content analysis.ResultsEight types of problems and seven components of good practice were identified representing all statements in the interviews. The eight problems were: language barriers, difficulties in arranging care for migrants without health care coverage, social deprivation and traumatic experiences, lack of familiarity with the health care system, cultural differences, different understandings of illness and treatment, negative attitudes among staff and patients, and lack of access to medical history. The components of good practice to overcome these problems or limit their impact were: organisational flexibility with sufficient time and resources, good interpreting services, working with families and social services, cultural awareness of staff, educational programmes and information material for migrants, positive and stable relationships with staff, and clear guidelines on the care entitlements of different migrant groups. Problems and good care components were similar across the three types of services.ConclusionsHealth care professionals in different services experience similar difficulties when providing care to migrants. They also have relatively consistent views on what constitutes good practice. The degree to which these components already are part of routine practice varies. Implementing good practice requires sufficient resources and organisational flexibility, positive attitudes, training for staff and the provision of information.

The study showed a clear relationship between worsening socio-economic circumstances and depression.

Socio-economic inequalities in suicide are a generalised phenomenon in western Europe, but the pattern and magnitude of these inequalities vary between countries. These inequalities call for improved access to psychiatric care for lower socio-economic groups.

Objectives: To describe the use of primary care services by a prisoner population so as to understand the great number of demands and therefore to plan services oriented to the specific needs of these patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study of a sample of prisoners' medical records. Setting: All Belgian prisons (n = 33). Patients: 513 patients over a total of 182 patient years, 3328 gneral practitioner (GP) contacts, 3655 reasons for encounter. Main results: Prisoners consulted the GP 17 times a year on average (95%CI 15 to 19.4). It is 3.8 times more than a demographically equivalent population in the community. The most common reasons for encounter were administrative procedures (22%) followed by psychological (13.1%), respiratory (12.9%), digestive (12.5%), musculoskeletal (12%), and skin problems (7.7%). Psychological reasons for consultations (n = 481) involved mainly (71%) feeling anxious, sleep disturbance, and prescription of psychoactive drugs. Many other visits concerned common problems that in other circumstances would not require any physician intervention. Conclusion: The most probable explanations for the substantial use of primary care in prison are the health status (many similarities noted between health problems at the admission and reasons for consultations during the prison term: mental health problems and health problems related to drug misuse), lack of access to informal health services (many contacts for common problems), prison rules (many consultations for administrative procedures), and mental health problems related to the difficulties of life in prison.

Objectives To explore the processes leading to inappropriate use of medicines for elderly patients admitted for acute care. Design Qualitative study with semistructured interviews with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists; focus groups with inpatients; and observation on the ward by clinical pharmacists for one month. Setting Five acute wards for care of the elderly in Belgium. Participants 5 doctors, 4 nurses, and 3 pharmacists from five acute wards for the interviews; all professionals and patients on two acute wards for the observation and 17 patients (from the same two wards) for the focus groups. Results Several factors contributed to inappropriate prescribing, counselling, and transfer of information on medicines to primary care. Firstly, review of treatment was driven by acute considerations, the transfer of information on medicines from primary to secondary care was limited, and prescribing was often not tailored to elderly patients. Secondly, some doctors had a passive attitude towards learning: they thought it would take too long to find the information they needed about medicines and lacked self directed learning. Finally, a paternalistic doctor-patient relationship and difficulties in sharing decisions about treatment between prescribers led to inappropriate use of medicines. Several factors, such as the input of geriatricians and good communication between members of the multidisciplinary geriatric team, led to better use of medicines. Conclusions In this setting, improvements targeted at the abilities of individuals, better doctor-patient and doctor-doctor relationships, and systems for transferring information between care settings will increase the appropriate use of medicines in elderly people.

Overall, the health survey underestimated the effects of low SES on poor health status, due to selection bias. We conclude that strategies to improve participation among disadvantaged socio-economic groups should be identified.

Study objective: There is an increasing body of evidence about socioeconomic inequality in preventive use, mostly for cancer screening. But as far as needs of prevention are unequally distributed, even equal use may not be fair. Moreover, prevention might be unequally used in the same way as health care in general. The objective of the paper is to assess inequity in prevention and to compare socioeconomic inequity in preventive medicine with that in health care. Design: A cross sectional Health Interview Survey was carried out in 1997 by face to face interview and self administered questionnaire. Two types of health care utilisation were considered (contacts with GPs and with specialists) and four preventive care mostly delivered in a GP setting (flu vaccination, cholesterol screening) or in a specialty setting (mammography and pap smear). Setting: Belgium. Participants: A representative sample of 7378 residents aged 25 years and over (participation rate: 61%). Outcome measure: Socioeconomic inequity was measured by the HI wvp index , which is the difference between use inequality and needs inequality. Needs was computed as the expected use by the risk factors or target groups. Main results: There was significant inequity for all medical contacts and preventive medicine. Medical contacts showed inequity favouring the rich for specialist visits and inequity favouring the poor for contacts with GPs. Regarding preventive medicine, inequity was high and favoured the rich for mammography and cervical screening; inequity was lower for flu immunisation and cholesterol screening but still favoured the higher socioeconomic groups. In the general practice setting, inequity in prevention was higher than inequity in health care; in the specialty setting, inequity in prevention was not statistically different from inequity in health care, although it was higher than in the general practice setting. Conclusions: If inequity in preventive medicine is to be lowered, the role of the GP must be fostered and access to specialty medicine increased, especially for cancer screening.