Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
DOCUMENT
Currently, the engagement of local communities in Health Impact Assessment is becoming more and more important. A scoping review was performed to take stock of visions, methods and experiences in this field.A combined Scopus and Medline search yielded 100 articles in scientific journals. The final selection consisted of 43 papers, including case studies, evaluation studies, reviews, and opinion papers. After analysis, consultation of four experts was performed to check preliminary study outcomes. A grey literature web search was performed to check and complement the results.Results show that community participation is generally considered a core element in HIA. Views as expressed in the papers concern, firstly, the need for and value of local knowledge, secondly, the adherence to or application of democratic values and, thirdly, empowerment of communities. Three categories of methods are used in relation to community participation, often in combination: methods to facilitate knowledge elicitation, to ensure the inclusion of communities in the HIA process, and to build community capacity to participate in policy development. However, the theoretical or practical underpinning of the choice for specific methods is mostly not presented. The experiences described in the papers mainly focus on the access to local knowledge and its usability as a source of evidence in the HIA process. Described effects of community participation are (improved) relations between communities and local agencies, policy makers and professionals and the empowerment of community members. Although these effects are ascribed to community participation, many papers do not provide support for this conclusion beyond the retrospective perception of participants. Expert consultation and additional analysis of the grey literature supported the results derived from the scientific literature and provided more in-depth knowledge. In the grey literature theoretical frameworks, methods and tools for community participation in HIA were more extensively reported as compared to the scientific literature.We conclude that the visions, methods and experiences concerning community participation show that a participative approach may contribute to better, context specific knowledge. It appears that participative HIA has health promotion potential as it helps develop responsive policies.To accomplish this, HIA should, firstly, be better embedded in broader health promotion programmes. Secondly, the methods and approaches for community participation applied in HIA should be theory-informed and well described. The grey literature offers entry points. Finally, more robust and systematic evaluation and research is needed to assess the impact of HIAs on communities and policies.
MULTIFILE
Background: In frail older people with natural teeth factors like polypharmacy, reduced salivary flow, a decrease of oral self-care, general healthcare issues, and a decrease in dental care utilization contribute to an increased risk for oral complications. On the other hand, oral morbidity may have a negative impact on frailty. Objective: This study explored associations between oral health and two frailty measures in community-dwelling older people. Design: A cross-sectional study. Setting: The study was carried out in a Primary Healthcare Center (PHC) in The Netherlands. Participants: Of the 5,816 persons registered in the PHC, 1,814 persons were eligible for participation at the start of the study. Measurements: Two frailty measures were used: 1. Being at risk for frailty, using Electronical Medical Record (EMR) data, and: 2. Survey-based frailty using ‘The Groningen Frailty Indicator’ (GFI). For oral health measures, dental-record data (dental care utilization, dental status, and oral health information) and self-reported oral problems were recorded. Univariate regression analyses were applied to determine the association between oral health and frailty, followed by age- and sex-adjusted multivariate logistic regressions. Results: In total 1,202 community-dwelling older people were included in the study, 45% were male and the mean age was 73 years (SD=8). Of all participants, 53% was at risk for frailty (638/1,202), and 19% was frail based on the GFI (222/1,202). A dental emergency visit (Odds Ratio (OR)= 2.0, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=1.33;3.02 and OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.00;2.49), experiencing oral problems (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.52;2.81 and OR=2.87, 95% CI= 2.07;3.99), and making dietary adaptations (OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31;5.41 and OR=5.49, 95% CI= 3.01;10.01) were associated with being at risk for frailty and surveybased frailty respectively. Conclusions: A dental emergency visit and self-reported oral health problems are associated with frailty irrespective of the approach to its measurement. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the associations of oral health and frailty in daily practice.
DOCUMENT
