[Cross-border healthcare in European Union and Czech Republic]. / Preshranicní zdravotní péce v Evropské unii a CR.

Currently, the cross-border healthcare still represents a marginal part of the Czech healthcare system's performance, though. Compared to the total healthcare expenditures in the Czech Republic that accounted for CZK 299.9 billion in 2014, the costs of the treatment provided to Czech patients abroad constitute mere 0.27%, and the (subsequently refunded) costs of the treatment provided to foreign patients in the Czech Republic 0.24%.Although data on changes in the volume and reimbursements of healthcare due to the Directive 2011/24/EU have not been published yet, we can expect rather evolutionary than revolutionary development of cross-border healthcare volumes. Taking into account all available data, we can conclude that the cross-border healthcare, as specified by the directive currently in force, is important in our conditions above all in relation to our neighbours, i. e. Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Poland.Key words: cross-border healthcare, patient mobility, international reimbursements EU health policy, Directive 2011/24/EU.

Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I2=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.