Refine
Document Type
Way of publication
- Open Access (3)
Keywords
- Migration (7)
- Gesundheit (5)
- Covid-19 (4)
- COVID-19 (3)
- Gesundheitsförderung (3)
- Prävention (3)
- SARS-CoV-2 (3)
- Geburtshilfe (2)
- Gesundheitsversorgung (2)
- Hebammen (2)
Institute
BTU
Dieses Kapitel stellt theoretische und empirische Grundlagen der Gesundheit, ihrer Determinanten und der gesundheitlichen Ungleichheit als Gegenstand eines systematischen Gesundheitsunterrichts vor (Goldfriedrich/Hurrelmann in diesem Band, Kern-Wert 2 des Gesundheitsunterrichtes). Das Wissen um die Komplexität menschlicher Vielfalt und deren Einfluss auf die gesundheitliche Situation bildet die Grundlage für das Verständnis zentraler Gesundheitsdimensionen (u. a. Müller/Porges in diesem Band) sowie die didaktische Schwerpunktsetzung in verschiedenen Institutionen im Entwicklungsverlauf, wie dem Gymnasium (Schwegmann in diesem Band), der Berufsschule (Trumpa/Dorn in diesem Band) oder in Hochschulen (Sprenger in diesem Band). In diesem Kontext erläutert das Kapitel die Problematik ungleich verteilter Gesundheitschancen und stellt die Bandbreite relevanter Einflussfaktoren am Beispiel der sozialen Lage, des Migrationshintergrunds und des Geschlechts bei Kindern und
Jugendlichen vor. Es zeigt auf, wie dieses Wissen im Bildungskontext curricular implementiert werden kann, um bereits im Kindes- und Jugendalter einen Beitrag zur gesundheitlichen Chancengleichheit leisten zu können.
Die Bevölkerungsgruppe der Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund umfasst fast ein Viertel der Gesamtbevölkerung in Deutschland und ist höchst heterogen. Pauschalisierende Aussagen zum Gesundheitsstatus dieser Gruppe sind daher nicht möglich. Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund sind nicht grundsätzlich gesünder oder kränker als die Mehrheitsbevölkerung. Allerdings können sie sich aufgrund von Expositionen vor, während und nach der Migration in ihren Gesundheitschancen und -risiken von der Mehrheitsbevölkerung unterscheiden. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung sollten daraus resultierende spezifische Bedarfe ebenso berücksichtigen wie die Diversität der Bevölkerung insgesamt. Erfolgversprechend ist eine Kombination aus diversitätssensiblen, für die Gesamtbevölkerung zugänglichen Angeboten und migrationsspezifischen Ansätzen in besonders risikoreichen Situationen. Kommunale, settingorientierte sowie soziokulturell angepasste Angebote verbessern die Erreichbarkeit der Zielgruppen maßgeblich.
Othering beschreibt die Markierung von Menschen als „anders“ oder „nicht zugehörig“. Ausgehend von den Konzepten des exclusionary und inclusionary Othering diskutiert dieser Beitrag drei Ansätze zu i) exclusionary Public Health, ii) inclusionary Public Health und iii) diversitätssensiblem Public Health. Die Implikationen der Ansätze werden am Beispiel des Umgangs mit der COVID-19 Pandemie bei schutzsuchenden Menschen in Aufnahmeeinrichtungen und Sammelunterkünften in Deutschland aufgezeigt.
Die Diversität der Auszubildenden, Lehrkräfte und Praxisanleiter*innen in der Pflegeausbildung nimmt zu. Interkulturelle Kompetenzen sollten deshalb bereits in die pflegepädagogische und pflegerische Ausbildung integriert werden.
Eine kulturell kompetente Pflegeausbildung basiert auf der Wertschätzung aller Beteiligten in ihrer kulturellen Vielfalt. Sie bedarf der steten Reflexion "eigener" un "fremder" Prägungen und der eigenen kulturellen Befangenheit und Begrenztheit.
Machtasymmetrien, Kollektiverfahrungen, Fremdbilder und differente Kulturmuster können zu kommunikativen Herausforde-rungen in der interkulturellen Begegnung führen. Über die individuelle Selbstreflexion hinaus ist es entscheidend, die sozialen, rechtlichen, ökonomischen, institutionel-len und organisationalen Rahmenbedingungen des Lernens und Lehrens zu verbessern.
Für die Pflegeausbildung empfehlenswert sind
- die Integration interkultureller Kompetenzen in die Ausbildung von Lehrenden,
- die Entwicklung kultursensibler Pflege-curricula,
- die Förderung von (Selbst-)reflexion in kollegialen Fallberatungen,
- das Antworten auf Vielfalt durch entsprechende Leitungs- und Anstellungsstrategien,
- der reflektierte und verständnisvolle Umgang mit unterschiedlichen Sprachkennt-nissen,
- das Nutzen entzerrter, dialogischer und kooperativer Lernstrukturen sowie
- die Begleitung von Lernenden durch So-zialarbeiter*innen.
Ziel des Factsheets ist es, das „Ausbreitungspotential“ (als kumulatives Inzidenzrisiko) von SARSCoV‐
2 in Aufnahmeeinrichtungen und Gemeinschaftsunterkünften bei Auftreten eines Falls zu
ermitteln, Zusammenhänge mit Einrichtungstyp und Strategie des Ausbruchsmanagements zu
explorieren und normativ‐rechtliche Aspekte zu diskutieren.
Zusammengefasst kann gesagt werden:
- Das Risiko, mit dem weitere Bewohner*innen nach einem ersten nachgewiesenen Fall von SARS‐CoV‐2 (mittels PCR) positiv getestet werden ist in Aufnahmeeinrichtungen und Gemeinschaftsunterkünften mit durchschnittlich 17% als hoch einzuschätzen, wobei es eine große Varianz zwischen den Einrichtungen gibt.
- Eine Kollektivquarantäne hat bezogen auf das Infektionsrisiko der unter Quarantäne gestellten Bewohner*innen gegenüber anderen Strategien keinen messbaren Vorteil. Ist innerhalb der Quarantäne eine physische Distanzierung nur bedingt möglich, ist von einer Erhöhung des Infektionsrisikos für die nicht‐infizierten Bewohner*innen auszugehen. Studien zur Quarantäne unter den vergleichsweisen günstigen Bedingungen von Kreuzfahrtschiffen bestätigen dies. Es gibt keine Daten darüber, ob die Kollektivquarantäne einen gesundheitlichen Nutzen für die Bevölkerung außerhalb der Einrichtung bedeutet. Da sie allerdings erhebliche normativ‐rechtliche Probleme birgt, ist die Kollektivquarantäne nach aktuellem Kenntnisstand zu vermeiden.
- Die Unterbringung von Geflüchteten sollte grundsätzlich coronaschutzkonform erfolgen, d.h. möglichst dezentral bzw. bei zentralen Einrichtungen möglichst in Einzelunterbringung in kleinen Wohneinheiten, damit bei Auftreten eines Falls eine rasche Ausbreitung vermieden wird und eine adäquate Kontaktnachverfolgung möglich ist.
- Nationale Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit SARS‐CoV‐2 in Aufnahmeeinrichtungen und Gemeinschaftsunterkünften unter Berücksichtigung der bisher vor Ort entwickelten Präventions‐ und Lösungsansätze sowie epidemiologischer und normativ‐rechtlicher Überlegungen sind dringend notwendig, um die beteiligten Akteur*innen in ihrem Engagement für die Gesundheit der Bewohner*innen zu unterstützen.
Dieses Papier richtet sich an: Politikverantwortliche sowie Akteur*innen der Flüchtlingsversorgung und der Wissenschaft.
Background: In Germany, more than 4.65 million people are currently living with a cancer diagnosis. Patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle both during and after therapy. In order to provide patients with practical and scientifically based information on health behavior, the authors developed “Aktiv leben mit Krebs” (ALMIK) using participatory program planning.
Methods: A non-blinded randomized controlled trial with intervention (IG) and wait list control group (WCG) was conducted at NCT/UCC Dresden and UCCSH in Kiel in 2022/2023 with a convenience sample of n=227 patients during and after therapy (65.7 years ± 11.7, 54.2% male). IG and WCG received a questionnaire at baseline and after 1 month. IG received the ALMIK brochure and a link to the website with videos. Changes in health literacy (HLS-EU Q) and acceptance were assessed.
Result: Acceptance of ALMIK in IG was high: 94.1% of all n=109 patients in the IG reported having used the brochure. 40.4% had visited the website. Videos were used by 36.7%. Almost all patients rated the brochure as understandable (97.8%), relevant (90.3%) and clearly presented (98.9%).
Patients also rated the website as well-structured (95.6%) and attractively designed (97.6%), and the videos as understandable (93.0%) and relevant (79.1%). Overall, 97.8% were satisfied with the program and 98.9% would recommend it to others. Patients of IG did not achieve higher HLS-score
in comparison to WCG (p=0.75).
Discussion: The brochure was used by many patients and was very well accepted. The website and videos were used less frequently, but overall by more than one-third of patients, who were also satisfied with them. Health literacy was not increased by ALMIK, which may be due to the low
intervention strength.
Conclusion: The high number of participants who used ALMIK indicates a high need for health behavior information for cancer patients. Patient involvement has proven to be an important component in creating well accepted program materials
The economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic pose a particular threat to vulnerable groups, such as migrants, particularly forcibly displaced populations. The aim of this review is (i) to synthesise the evidence on risk of infection and transmission among migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced populations, and (ii) the effect of lockdown measures on these populations. We searched MEDLINE and WOS, preprint servers, and pertinent websites between 1st December 2019 and 26th June 2020. The included studies showed a high heterogeneity in study design, population, outcome and quality. The incidence risk of SARS-CoV-2 varied from 0•12% to 2•08% in non-outbreak settings and from 5•64% to 21•15% in outbreak settings. Migrants showed a lower hospitalisation rate compared to non-migrants. Negative impacts on mental health due to lockdown measures were found across respective studies. However, findings show a tenuous and heterogeneous data situation, showing the need for more robust and comparative study designs.
Background
Claims for self-determined childbirth (SDC) have gained increasing scientific, political and societal attention. However, research on SDC is limited. This study analyzes and compares midwives’ experiences and perspectives on factors that promote or limit SDC in hospitals, birthing centers and during home births in Germany. We argue that these insights are essential in order to foster self-determination and to avoid its violation.
Methods
A qualitative case study was conducted based on semi-structured face-to-face interviews with midwives working in hospitals, birthing centers, and offering home births in Germany. In total, nine interviews were conducted in 2021 and have been audiotaped, transcribed, anonymized and analyzed by use of Thematic Analysis.
Results
The results indicate eight inter-related categories, each of which imply promoting and limiting factors: 1) Structural/ legal conditions; 2) Perception of birth (e. g. as natural or medical process; required competence and control); 3) Trust and atmosphere; 4) Getting acquainted/relationship building; 5) Birthing person’s socioeconomic position; 6) Birthing person’s preparation/ education; 7) Birthing person’s capability of decision making and expression; and 8) Behavior of accompanying persons. Moreover, we identified midwives’ strategies to extend possibilities of choice. Several factors clearly differ depending on the birth setting.
Conclusions
The opportunities for SDC seem to differ according to the setting (e.g. institutional routines), inter-personal relations (e.g. getting acquainted, trust), and individual factors (e.g. socioeconomic position, capabilities). Hence, political, institutional and individual strategies may support SDC in consideration of the above factors. Measures may, among others, include the improvement of information processes, the reduction of economic barriers, relationship building before and during birth as well as respective structural adjustments.
The German government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been predominantly considered wellfounded. Still, the practice of mass quarantine in reception centres and asylum camps has been criticised for its discrimination of refugees and asylum seekers. Building on the concept of othering, this article argues that processes of othering are structurally anchored in German asylum regulations and they have further pervaded public health measures against COVID-19. The practice of mass quarantine made the negative consequences of exclusionary othering for public health particularly noticeable. In the light of recent data indicating this measure to be epidemiologically, legally and ethically insufficient, we apply the concept of othering to public health and discuss (1) exclusionary, (2) inclusionary and (3) diversity-sensitive approaches to public health. We finally conclude that a shift of perspective from exclusion to inclusion, from subordination to empowerment and from silencing to participation is urgently required.
Background
Midwifery care is increasingly discussed in terms of its ability to promote a self-determined childbirth. The degree of self-determination (SD) depends on the extent to which women's preferences are negotiated and implemented. From the perspective of midwives in different obstetric settings in Germany, this study answered the research question: “How do midwives deal with women's preferences during birth?”.
Methods
11 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with active midwives. The sample showed a high variance in terms of obstetric settings (clinics, birth centers, home births), regions, and participants’ characteristics (e. g. experience, age). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using the Grounded Theory Methodology (Strauss/Corbin, 1994).
Results
A model consisting of 7 steps was developed: 1) Interpret the situation; 2) Prioritize relevant parameters; 3) Determine a frame of possibilities; 4) Match the preference(s) to the frame of possibilities; 5) Negotiate preference(s); 6) Continuously monitor contextual/situational changes; 7) Adjust the frame of possibilities. The actions are related to contextual conditions (structural; interpersonal; personal; health situation; course of birth; understanding of birth). The model shows how midwives can promote SD even if prior preferences are discarded or modified at birth.
Conclusions
The model describes how midwives in Germany deal with women's preferences during birth, which factors they consider decisive in doing so, and how SD may be promoted despite of discarded or modified preferences. Further research should examine the role of relationship building, test the model with regard to its generalizability, and use it to analyze and support person-centered midwifery care.
Key messages
• The model describes how midwives in different obstetric settings in Germany deal with women’s preferences during birth and, thereby, influence self-determination.
• Midwives can promote self-determination also if prior preferences are discarded, modified, or redeveloped at birth.
Objectives
Active and passive exposure to tobacco cigarettes during pregnancy is associated with multiple negative health outcomes for the fetus. In addition, exposure to e-cigarettes has been progressively discussed as a new threat to fetal health. Until now, there has been a lack of studies examining active and passive exposure to tobacco and e-cigarettes among pregnant women. The objective of our current STudy on E-cigarettes and Pregnancy (STEP) was to advance and complement the current knowledge regarding active and passive exposure to tobacco and e-cigarettes before pregnancy and during early and late pregnancy.
Methods
One element of the STEP study was a quantitative cross-sectional design: A sample of 540 pregnant women recruited at an obstetrician clinic in Hamburg from April 2018 to January 2019 were surveyed once via a standardized questionnaire and provided complete information regarding their consumption of tobacco and e-cigarettes. We performed a descriptive analysis of tobacco and e-cigarette use before pregnancy and during early and late pregnancy, as well as bivariate analysis of these variables with sociodemographic determinants. Passive exposure was assessed by asking the participating pregnant women about the consumption of tobacco and e-cigarettes by their partners, in general, and in their homes.
Results
Before pregnancy, 20.0% of the participants used tobacco cigarettes exclusively, 1.3% used e-cigarettes exclusively, and 6.5% were dual users. Educational level was significantly associated with tobacco cigarette use (p < 0.001) and dual use (p = 0.047) before pregnancy. During early (late) pregnancy, 8.7% (2.8%) used tobacco cigarettes and 0.4% (0.0%) used e-cigarettes exclusively. Twenty-point nine percent of women’s partners consumed tobacco cigarettes exclusively, 2.7% consumed e-cigarettes exclusively, and 2.7% consumed both. A total of 8.5% (16.7%) of the partners who consumed tobacco cigarettes exclusively (e-cigarettes exclusively) did so in the women’s homes.
Conclusions for Practice
Among pregnant women, the use of tobacco cigarettes remains prominent before and during pregnancy, while e-cigarette use predominately occurs before pregnancy. Our study shows that pregnant women are frequently exposed to their partners’ tobacco and e-cigarette use within their homes. Strategies to reduce such exposure should be further intensified.
Significance
In the last decade, e-cigarettes have become popular, and e-cigarette use has been increasing, even among pregnant women. However, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the exposure to e-cigarettes before pregnancy and during early and late pregnancy, as well as studies comparing e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. The current study found that active exposure to e-cigarettes before pregnancy is high, while exposure during pregnancy is marginal. In contrast, exposure to tobacco cigarettes before and in early pregnancy is high but decreases during late pregnancy. In addition, the results of our study show that pregnant women are passively exposed to tobacco and e-cigarettes at home. Pregnant women should be advised against exposing themselves, actively or passively, to tobacco and e-cigarette smoke.
Issue/problem
In 2020, several German reception centers and asylum camps were imposed mass quarantine after single residents had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Civil and research networks criticized this measure, as crowded housing conditions limited the implementation of infection protection measures, and mass quarantine further increased the risk of infection. This raised the question why public health (PH) measures in these settings differed from those implemented in the general population, and which implications for future PH approaches can be identified.
Problem description
Considering the epidemiological evidence and ethical perspectives on the PH strategies described above, we applied the concepts of “Exclusionary Othering” and “Inclusionary Othering” to PH. We further discussed the Covid-19 management in German reception centers and asylum camps.
Results
We identified three conceptual approaches: 1) exclusionary, 2) inclusionary, and 3) diversity-sensitive approaches to PH. Exclusionary PH is characterized by an exclusion of less powerful groups despite negative health consequences. Inclusive approaches seek to empower less powerful groups in order to understand each other's needs, build cooperations, protect everyone and to prevent the development of “hot spots”. Diversity-sensitive PH approaches avoid othering and seek to implement measures for everyone, taking into account diverse needs, conditions, and resources.
Lessons
We propose a paradigm shift towards inclusionary and diversity-sensitive PH that benefits the entire population, including those forced to flee other countries. This requires a critical reflection of power dynamics and discrimination. The proposed concepts can be transferred to other social groups, regions, and areas of PH.
Key messages
Public health needs to shift its perspective from exclusion and subordination to inclusion and involvement.
Inclusionary and diversity-sensitive PH approaches promote health equity.
The economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic pose a particular threat to vulnerable groups, such as migrants, particularly forcibly displaced populations. The aim of this review is (i) to synthesise the evidence on risk of infection and transmission among migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced populations, and (ii) the effect of lockdown measures on these populations. We searched MEDLINE and WOS, preprint servers, and pertinent websites between 1st December 2019 and 26th June 2020. The included studies showed a high heterogeneity in study design, population, outcome and quality. The incidence risk of SARS-CoV-2 varied from 0.12% to 2.08% in non-outbreak settings and from 5.64% to 21.15% in outbreak settings. Migrants showed a lower hospitalisation rate compared to non-migrants. Negative impacts on mental health due to lockdown measures were found across respective studies. However, findings show a tenuous and heterogeneous data situation, showing the need for more robust and comparative study designs.
Migrants and their offspring, referred to as people with a migration background in this article, are an utmost heterogeneous group whose health situation can be better, similar or worse compared to the health of the population without a migration background. A better understanding of the health of people with a migration background requires the consideration of their individual life course as well as several additional explanatory factors. The latter include, for instance, their social position, age, and gender, as well as the policies, health care system, social climate, living situation, and length of stay in the destination country. Particularly promising public health strategies for migrant health include a combination of migration sensitive and migration specific offers, setting approaches, and inclusionary public health approaches that critically reflect on mechanisms of othering, marginalization, and exclusion.
Background: The Covid-19 pandemic led to increased work-related strain and psychosocial burden in nurses worldwide, resulting in high prevalences of mental health problems. Nurses in long-term care facilities seem to be especially affected by the pandemic. Nevertheless, there are few findings indicating possible positive changes for health care workers. Therefore, we investigated which psychosocial burdens and potential positive aspects nurses working in long-term care facilities experience during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study among nurses and nursing assistants working in nursing homes in Germany. The survey contained the third German version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III). Using Welch's t-tests, we compared the COPSOQ results of our sample against a pre-pandemic reference group of geriatric nurses from Germany. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with geriatric nurses with a special focus on psychosocial stress, to reach a deeper understanding of their experiences on work-related changes and burdens during the pandemic. Data were analysed using thematic coding (Braun and Clarke).
Results: Our survey sample (n = 177) differed significantly from the pre-pandemic reference group in 14 out of 31 COPSOQ scales. Almost all of these differences indicated negative changes. Our sample scored significantly worse regarding the scales 'quantitative demands', 'hiding emotions', 'work-privacy conflicts', 'role conflicts', 'quality of leadership', 'support at work', 'recognition', 'physical demands', 'intention to leave profession', 'burnout', 'presenteeism' and 'inability to relax'. The interviews (n = 15) revealed six main themes related to nurses' psychosocial stress: 'overall working conditions', 'concern for residents', 'management of relatives', 'inability to provide terminal care', 'tensions between being infected and infecting others' and 'technicisation of care'. 'Enhanced community cohesion' (interviews), 'meaning of work' and 'quantity of social relations' (COPSOQ III) were identified as positive effects of the pandemic.
Conclusions: Results clearly illustrate an aggravation of geriatric nurses' situation and psychosocial burden and only few positive changes due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Pre-existing hardships seem to have further deteriorated and new stressors added to nurses' strain. The perceived erosion of care, due to an overemphasis of the technical in relation to the social and emotional dimensions of care, seems to be especially burdensome to geriatric nurses.
Ziel der Studie Untersuchung der Assoziation von Sorge vor eigener Infektion oder der Infektion von Freunden, Familie und Pflegebedürftigen mit Covid-19 und Burnout-Symptomen von Pflegekräften in Brandenburger vollstationären Altenpflegeeinrichtungen.
Methodik Querschnittliche Befragung von Pflegekräften (n=195) in Brandenburger Pflegeheimen zwischen August und Dezember 2020 hinsichtlich ihrer psychosozialen Belastung am Arbeitsplatz.
Ergebnisse Das Vorliegen der Sorge, sich selbst, Familie und/oder Freunde oder Pflegebedürftige mit Covid-19 infiziert zu haben, ist mit einer erhöhten Ausprägung von Burnout-Symptomen assoziiert (b=0,200, t(155)=2,777, p=0,006).
Schlussfolgerung Ein erhöhtes Erleben von Burnout-Symptomen durch die Sorge eines Infektionsrisikos mit Covid-19 am Arbeitsplatz spricht für den Bedarf umfassender Unterstützungsmaßnahmen sowie nachhaltiger Konzepte zum Umgang mit psychosozialer Belastung für Pflegekräfte in der Altenpflege.
Background: Nurses’ work-related strain and psychological burden increased during the Covid-19 pandemic, resulting in high prevalences of mental health problems among nurses worldwide. Nurses in long-term care facilities seem to be particularly prone to overall heightened burden and poor mental health.
Research question: We investigated which work-related psychosocial burdens and potential positive aspects nurses working in nursing homes experience during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Method: We conducted a mixed-methods study. Eligible for participation were nurses and nursing assistants working in nursing homes within the state of Brandenburg, Germany. Between August and October 2020, we distributed an anonymous survey containing the third German version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III). Using Welch’s t-tests, we compared the COPSOQ results of our sample against a pre-pandemic reference group of geriatric nurses, drawn from the German COPSOQ databank and kindly shared by the Freiburg Research Centre for Occupational Science. In June 2021, we also conducted semi-structured interviews with geriatric nurses to reach a deeper understanding of their experiences on work-related changes and burdens during the first phases of the pandemic. Data were analysed using thematic coding (Braun and Clarke).
Results: Our survey sample (n=177) differed significantly from the reference group in 14 out of 31 COPSOQ scales. Amongst others, our sample scored significantly worse regarding the scales ‘support at work’, ‘recognition’, ‘quantitative demands’, ‘hiding emotions’, ‘role conflicts’, ‘intention to leave profession’, ‘burnout’ and ‘inability to relax’. The interviews (n=17) revealed five main themes related to nurses’ psychosocial stress: ‘overall working conditions under the hygiene measures’, ‘concern for isolated residents’, ‘management of relatives’, ‘inability to provide terminal care‘, ‘tensions between being infected and infecting others’ and ‘technicisation of care’. ‘Enhanced community cohesion’ and ‘meaning of work’ were identified as positive effects of the pandemic.
Discussion: Results indicate that nurses in nursing homes experience enhanced psychosocial and work-related strain. The comparisons with the pre-pandemic reference group suggest that the situation further aggravated during the pandemic. Nurses exhibited high psychosocial burden, e.g., due to strongly impeded possibilities to fulfill the emotional and social dimensions of care and the constant fear of infection or transmission. Deteriorated working conditions (e.g., higher workload through staff shortages and additional tasks) further exacerbated these burdens. Few positive aspects of the pandemic may be important sources of resilience.
Practical implications: The reduction of nurses’ strain through psychosocial support and the improvement of working conditions is crucial for the protection of nurses’ health.
Appeal for practice in one sentence: Political players as well as care facilities should take measures to improve nurses’ situation in order to maintain a healthy workforce and high-quality care.
Background: By explaining the development of health inequalities, eco-social theories highlight the importance of social environments that children are embedded in. The most important environment during early childhood is the family, as it profoundly influences children’s health through various characteristics. These include family processes,
family structure/size, and living conditions, and are closely linked to the socioeconomic position (SEP) of the family. Although it is known that the SEP contributes to health inequalities in early childhood, the effects of family characteristics on health inequalities remain unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise existing research on the mediating and moderating effects of family characteristics on socioeconomic health inequalities (HI) during early childhood in high-income countries.
Methods: This review followed the methodology of “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews”. To identify German and English scientific peer-reviewed literature published from January 1st, 2000, to December 19th,
2019, the following search term blocks were linked with the logical operator “AND”: (1) family structure/size, processes, living conditions, (2) inequalities, disparities, diversities, (3) income, education, occupation, (4) health and (5) young children. The search covered the electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus.
Results: The search yielded 7,089 records. After title/abstract and full-text screening, only ten peer-reviewed articles were included in the synthesis, which analysed the effects of family characteristics on HI in early childhood. Family processes (i.e., rules /descriptive norms, stress, parental screen time, parent–child conflicts) are identified to have mediating or moderating effects. While families’ living conditions (i.e., TVs in children’s bedrooms) are suggested as
mediating factors, family structure/size (i.e., single parenthood, number of children in the household) appear to moderate health inequalities. Conclusion: Family characteristics contribute to health inequalities in early childhood. The results provide overall
support of models of family stress and family investment. However, knowledge gaps remain regarding the role of family health literacy, regarding a wide range of children’s health outcomes (e.g., oral health, inflammation parameters, weight, and height), and the development of health inequalities over the life course starting at birth.