Health Outcomes in EU Cross-Border Regions: A Scoping Review.

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Pub Date : 2025-02-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/phrs.2025.1608170
Sophie Stroisch, Viola Angelini, Sebastian Schnettler, Tobias Vogt
{"title":"Health Outcomes in EU Cross-Border Regions: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Sophie Stroisch, Viola Angelini, Sebastian Schnettler, Tobias Vogt","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2025.1608170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review examines health outcome trends in European cross-border regions, identifies available evidence, and highlights research gaps. The European Union's integration efforts aim to harmonise living standards and healthcare access. Removed border controls and freedom of movement enhanced service availability, benefiting populations in border regions with cross-border healthcare access. However, these populations are exposed to different institutional settings, highlighting health differences worth studying.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, using the PCC (Population-Concept-Context) framework to set eligibility criteria. The search covered literature databases and international governmental institution websites, yielding 785 studies, with 24 included in the final analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No comprehensive studies investigating longitudinal population health patterns were found. Instead, there are studies on specific diseases or health outcomes in particular border regions, especially around Germany. Most of these studies were cross-sectional. Five key research themes emerged: antibiotic resistance, COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2, other infectious diseases, cancer survival, and additional health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that cross-border contexts have predominantly been used to study infectious disease spread, with little attention given to the broader impact of European integration on long-term health trends.</p>","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":"46 ","pages":"1608170"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11891012/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2025.1608170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review examines health outcome trends in European cross-border regions, identifies available evidence, and highlights research gaps. The European Union's integration efforts aim to harmonise living standards and healthcare access. Removed border controls and freedom of movement enhanced service availability, benefiting populations in border regions with cross-border healthcare access. However, these populations are exposed to different institutional settings, highlighting health differences worth studying.

Methods: We employed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, using the PCC (Population-Concept-Context) framework to set eligibility criteria. The search covered literature databases and international governmental institution websites, yielding 785 studies, with 24 included in the final analysis.

Results: No comprehensive studies investigating longitudinal population health patterns were found. Instead, there are studies on specific diseases or health outcomes in particular border regions, especially around Germany. Most of these studies were cross-sectional. Five key research themes emerged: antibiotic resistance, COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2, other infectious diseases, cancer survival, and additional health outcomes.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that cross-border contexts have predominantly been used to study infectious disease spread, with little attention given to the broader impact of European integration on long-term health trends.

欧盟跨境区域的健康结果:范围审查。
目的:本范围审查审查了欧洲跨境区域的健康结果趋势,确定了现有证据,并突出了研究差距。欧盟的一体化努力旨在协调生活水平和医疗保健服务。取消边境管制和行动自由提高了服务的可获得性,使边境地区的人口能够获得跨境医疗保健服务。然而,这些人群生活在不同的机构环境中,突出了值得研究的健康差异。方法:我们采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的方法,使用PCC(人口-概念-环境)框架来设定资格标准。搜索涵盖了文献数据库和国际政府机构网站,共产生785项研究,其中24项纳入最终分析。结果:未发现调查人口纵向健康模式的综合研究。相反,有针对特定边境地区,特别是德国周边地区的特定疾病或健康结果的研究。这些研究大多是横断面的。出现了五个关键研究主题:抗生素耐药性、COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2、其他传染病、癌症生存和其他健康结果。结论:研究结果表明,跨境背景主要用于研究传染病传播,很少关注欧洲一体化对长期健康趋势的更广泛影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Nursing-Community and Home Care
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信