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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
Implementation of the Community Component of the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP): A Scoping Review. Health Outcomes in EU Cross-Border Regions: A Scoping Review. Impact of Climate Variability on Foodborne Diarrheal Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Violence and Healthcare in Ecuador: Challenges, Responses, and System Resilience. Surrounding Residential Greenness and Health: Associations With Abdominal Obesity and Dyslipidemia. A Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional Studies.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1