Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mental health and substance use disorders among children, youth, and young adults are major threats to the health and well-being of younger populations which often carryover into adulthood. The costs of treatment for mental health and addictive disorders, which create an enormous burden on the affected individuals, their families, and society, have stimulated increasing interest in prevention practices that can impede the onset or reduce the severity of the disorders. Prevention practices have emerged in a variety of settings, including programs for selected at-risk populations (such as children and youth in the child welfare system), school-based interventions, interventions in primary care settings, and community services designed to address a broad array of mental health needs and populations. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People updates a 1994 Institute of Medicine book, Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders , focusing special attention on the research base and program experience with younger populations that have emerged since that time. Researchers, such as those involved in prevention science, mental health, education, substance abuse, juvenile justice, health, child and youth development, as well as policy makers involved in state and local mental health, substance abuse, welfare, education, and justice will depend on this updated information on the status of research and suggested directions for the field of mental health and prevention of disorders.

Qingyue Meng and colleagues assess what China’s health system reform has achieved and what needs to be done over the next decade

Background Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. Methods The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. Results One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. Conclusions Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. Trial registration Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

In 1988, the Brazilian Constitution defined health as a universal right and a state responsibility. Progress towards universal health coverage in Brazil has been achieved through a unified health system (Sistema Único de Saúde [SUS]), created in 1990. With successes and setbacks in the implementation of health programmes and the organisation of its health system, Brazil has achieved nearly universal access to health-care services for the population. The trajectory of the development and expansion of the SUS offers valuable lessons on how to scale universal health coverage in a highly unequal country with relatively low resources allocated to health-care services by the government compared with that in middle-income and high-income countries. Analysis of the past 30 years since the inception of the SUS shows that innovations extend beyond the development of new models of care and highlights the importance of establishing political, legal, organisational, and management-related structures, with clearly defined roles for both the federal and local governments in the governance, planning, financing, and provision of health-care services. The expansion of the SUS has allowed Brazil to rapidly address the changing health needs of the population, with dramatic upscaling of health service coverage in just three decades. However, despite its successes, analysis of future scenarios suggests the urgent need to address lingering geographical inequalities, insufficient funding, and suboptimal private sector–public sector collaboration. Fiscal policies implemented in 2016 ushered in austerity measures that, alongside the new environmental, educational, and health policies of the Brazilian government, could reverse the hard-earned achievements of the SUS and threaten its sustainability and ability to fulfil its constitutional mandate of providing health care for all.

Global and national initiatives focused on health systems strengthening, universal health coverage, health security, and resilience suffer when these terms are not well understood or believed to be different ways of saying the same thing. Conceptual clarity is essential for a systematic approach to policy-making. Confusion and inefficiency arise when health system strengthening is defined as an objective and also when universal health coverage, health security or resilience are described as separate programmes to be implemented. So here is a simple guide: health system strengthening is what they do; universal health coverage, health security and resilience are what they want.

Funding for CEDAR from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. [...]together with physical inactivity, dietary risk factors are responsible for 10% of disability-adjusted life years lost globally [2].

Background Germany has a statutory health insurance (SHI) that covers nearly the entire population and most of the health services provided. Newly arrived refugees whose asylum claim is still being processed are initially excluded from the SHI. Instead, their entitlements are restricted and parallel access models have been implemented. We assessed differences in realized access of healthcare services between these access models. Methods In Germany’s largest federal state, North Rhine-Westphalia, two different access models have been implemented in the 396 municipalities: the healthcare voucher (HcV) model and the electronic health card (eHC) model. As refugees are quasi-randomly assigned to municipalities, we were able to realize a natural quasi-experiment including all newly assigned refugees from six municipalities (three for each model) in 2016 and 2017. Using claims data, we compared the standardized incidence rates (SIR) of specialist services use, emergency services use, and hospitalization due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) between both models. We indirectly standardized utilization patterns first for age and then for the sex. Results SIRs of emergency use were higher in municipalities with HcV (ranging from 1.41 to 2.63) compared to emergency rates in municipalities with eHC (ranging from 1.40 to 1.71) and differed significantly from the expected rates derived from official health reporting. SIRs of emergency and specialist use in municipalities with eHC converged with the expected rates over time. There were no significant differences in standardized hospitalization rates for ACSC. Conclusion The results suggest that the eHC model is slightly better able to provide refugees with SHI-like access to specialist services and goes along with lower utilization of emergency services compared to the HcV model. No difference between the models was found for hospitalizations due to ACSC. Results might be slightly biased due to incompletely documented service use and due to (self-) selection on the level of municipalities with municipalities interested in facilitating access showing more interest in joining the project.

\"In the post-Cold War, post financial crisis era, health care is an issue of critical political, personal and economic concern. In the US, plans to address a troubled health care model were met by vocal opposition. In the UK and post-communist Europe, attempts to introduce aspects of that model have resulted in controversy and violent protests, while China and Russia have recently backpedalled on marketising reforms. This innovative book provides a timely analysis addressing the many dimensions of radical health care change. Bringing together three major geopolitical regions with strikingly different recent histories, this international cast of contributors, examines reform in US, China and Europe within a single study frame. They look at the processes that have been involved when countries with such diverse starting points try to move towards a globally shared health care framework. An underlying theme running through the chapters is access to care, and how it is shaped by moral economies, by what can be said and known, and by political and economic power. Health Care Reform and Globalisation confronts the interpretations and experiences of patients, professionals, and politicians of health care transformation in practice. It will be of interest to scholars from a range of diverse disciplinary backgrounds, including public health, anthropology, area studies, sociology, politics, social policy, geography and economics. \"