The COVID-19 crisis impacts populations globally. This impact seems to differ for groups with low- and high-socioeconomic status (SES). We conducted a qualitative study in the Netherlands using a salutogenic perspective to examine experiences with stressors and coping resources during the pandemic among both SES groups to gain insight on how to promote the health and well-being of these groups. We conducted 10 focus group discussions and 20 interviews to explore the experiences, including resources and stressors, of respondents from low- (N = 37) and high-SES (N = 38) groups (25-55 years, Dutch speaking). We analyzed the findings at individual, community, and national levels. The results show that coping depends on government-imposed measures and the way individuals handle these measures; restriction to the home context with positive and negative consequences for work and leisure; psychological negative consequences and resourcefulness; and social effects related to unity (e.g. social cohesion or support) and division (including polarization). Respondents with lower SES expressed more problems with COVID-19 measures and experienced more social impact in their neighborhood than those with higher SES. Where low-SES groups especially mentioned the effects of staying at home on family life, high-SES groups mentioned effects on work life. At last, psychological consequences seem to differ somewhat across SES groups. Recommendations include consistent government-imposed measures and government communication, support for home schooling children, and strengthening the social fabric of neighborhoods.
MULTIFILE
Background Evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on existing health inequalities is emerging. This study explored differences in mental health, sense of coherence (SOC), sense of community coherence (SOCC), sense of national coherence (SONC), and social support between low and high socioeconomic (SES) groups, and the predictive value of these predictors for mental health. participants and procedure A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey in the Netherlands in October 2021, comprising a total of 91 respondents (n = 41, low SES; n = 50, high SES). results There were no differences in mental health, SOC, SOCC, SONC, and social support between the groups. SOC was a predictor for mental health in both groups and SOCC for the low SES group. conclusions We found that both SOC and SOCC predict mental health during the pandemic. In the article we reflect on possible pathways for strengthening these resources for mental health.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
DOCUMENT
Ongoing demographic changes are challenging health systems worldwide especially in relation to increasing longevity and the resultant rise of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). To meet these challenges, a paradigm shift to a more proactive approach to health promotion, and maintenance is needed. This new paradigm focuses on creating and implementing an ecological model of Culture of Health. The conceptualization of the Culture of Health is defined as one where good health and well-being flourish across geographic, demographic, and social sectors; fostering healthy equitable communities where citizens have the opportunity to make choices and be co-producers of healthy lifestyles. Based on Antonovsky's Salutogenesis model which asserts that the experience of health moves along a continuum across the lifespan, we will identify the key drivers for achieving a Culture of Health. These include mindset/expectations, sense of community, and civic engagement. The present article discusses these drivers and identifies areas where policy and research actions are needed to advance positive change on population health and well-being. We highlight empirical evidence of drivers within the EU guided by the activities within the thematic Action Groups of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Aging (EIP on AHA), focusing on Lifespan Health Promotion and Prevention of Age-Related Frailty and Disease (A3 Action Group). We will specifically focus on the effect of Culture on Health, highlighting cross-cutting drivers across domains such as innovations at the individual and community level, and in synergies with business, policy, and research entities. We will present examples of drivers for creating a Culture of Health, the barriers, the remaining gaps, and areas of future research to achieve an inclusive and sustainable asset-based community.
DOCUMENT
Ageing potentially poses a threat to independent functioning of older adults. Although clinicians commonly focus on physical factors limiting Functional Independence (FI), it is likely that personal and environmental interactions also seem important to maintain FI. Herewith, FI exceeds several professional borders and calls for a uniform, multidisciplinary interdisciplinary supported definition of FI. This study aims to provide such a definition of FI in community dwelling older people. A scoping review was performed. Pubmed/Medline, Psychinfo and CINAHL were searched for studies describing aspects of FI. A literature-based definition of FI was discussed by experts (n = 7), resulting in a formulated final definition of FI and insight into contributing factors to FI. A multidisciplinairy focusgroup a stakeholder consultation (n = 15) ensured clinical relevance for daily practice. Data from the focusgroup stakeholder consultation were analyzed by using Atlas.ti (version 8). Based on the literature search, 25 studies were included. FI was finally defined as “Functioning physically safely and independent from another person, within one’s own context”. The contributing factors of FI comprised physical capacity combined with coping, empowerment and health literacy. Moreover, the level of FI is influenced by someone’s own context. This study confirms the relevance of the physical aspect of FI, but additionally stresses the importance of psychological factors. In addition, this study shows that one’s context may affect the level of FI as well. This underlines the importance of a holistic view and calls for multidisciplinary interdisciplinary collaboration in community-dwelling older people.
LINK
