Cross-border mobility in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: impact of COVID-19 border restrictions on everyday activities and visiting social network members.

Introduction: Cross-border mobility (CBM) to visit social network members or for everyday activities is an important part of daily life for citizens in border regions, including the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (EMR: neighboring regions from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany). We assessed changes in CBM during the COVID-19 pandemic and how participants experienced border restrictions. Methods: Impact of COVID-19 on the EMR' is a longitudinal study using comparative cross-border data collection. In 2021, a random sample of the EMR-population was invited for participation in online surveys to assess current and pre-pandemic CBM. Changes in CBM, experience of border restrictions, and associated factors were analyzed using multinomial and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: Pre-pandemic, 82% of all 3,543 participants reported any CBM: 31% for social contacts and 79% for everyday activities. Among these, 26% decreased social CBM and 35% decreased CBM for everyday activities by autumn 2021. Negative experience of border restrictions was reported by 45% of participants with pre-pandemic CBM, and was higher (p < 0.05) in Dutch participants (compared to Belgian; aOR= 1.4), cross-border [work] commuters (aOR= 2.2), participants with cross-border social networks of friends, family or acquaintances (aOR= 1.3), and those finding the measures 'limit group size' (aOR= 1.5) and 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 2.0) difficult to adhere to and finding 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 1.6) useless. Discussion: CBM for social contacts and everyday activities was substantial in EMR-citizens, but decreased during the pandemic. Border restrictions were valued as negative by a considerable portion of EMR-citizens, especially when having family or friends across the border. When designing future pandemic control strategies, policy makers should account for the negative impact of CBM restrictions on their citizens.

European policies for public health in border regions: no European mindset as yet.

BACKGROUND: The sudden emergence of COVID-19 in 2020 demonstrated that Europe was not prepared for a public health crisis like this pandemic. In the European Union, matters of health have remained primarily under the jurisdiction of individual Member States. However, certain events, such as the Kohll-Decker ruling on free mobility of health services and the COVID-19 pandemic, compelled the EU to address health matters in border regions. This study examines how EU policies address public health in border regions. To that end, we have drawn from border studies, a field that provides insight into the fluidity and complexity of borders in everyday life. Besides that we used constructivist policy studies as a lens for the analysis of EU policy documents. METHODS: A policy discourse analysis was conducted to explore how European policy addresses the development of a transnational, European public health in border regions. Key European policy documents published between 2002 and 2027 were analysed to understand how policies are constructed and problems are framed. The analysis was guided by research questions and the theoretical approach. RESULTS: The analysis reveals that, while having limited competences in the field of health care, the EU is slowly developing a rationale and a knowledge base to increase its competences in health care. It also shows that in the field of public health, the EU argues for addressing health determinants and promoting healthy lifestyles, though it does not address health promotion in border regions. The EU's authority in public health in border regions revolves primarily around addressing physical, biological and chemical threats rather than social health problems. CONCLUSION: Though the EU has carefully developed a transnational perspective on health care, the EU has not developed any authority with respect to transnational public health. Though public health and health promotion in border regions have been confronted with specific challenges, neither specific Member States nor the EU have a transnational collaborative perspective that does justice to the characteristics of border regions. When it comes to public health in border regions, there is no European mindset as yet.

Differences in non-positive intention to accept the COVID-19 booster vaccine between three countries in the cross-border region Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: The Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany.

COVID-19 booster vaccination has shown to add to the protection against infection with SARS-CoV2 and subsequent severe disease. This longitudinal cross-border study aimed to identify factors associated with COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions in an initially vaccinated adult population living in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (EMR; including the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany) and differences between countries. Data collection took place in autumn of 2021 and consisted of online questionnaires sent to a random sample of the population based on governmental registries. Data from 3,319 fully and partially vaccinated adults were used to examine determinants of non-positive intention for a booster vaccination (i.e., uncertain or do not want), using multivariable logistic regression analyses weighted by age group, sex, and country. Compared to German residents, Dutch residents (OR = 2.4) and Belgian residents (OR = 1.4) were more likely to be uncertain or not want to receive a booster vaccine in September-October 2021. Factors independently associated with non-positive intention were female sex (OR = 1.6), absence of comorbidities (OR = 1.3), time since last vaccination less than 3 months ago for those fully vaccinated (OR = 1.6), being partially vaccinated (OR = 3.6), a negative experience with communication of COVID-19 measures (OR = 2.2), and regarding measures as ineffective (OR = 1.1). Results indicate that booster vaccine intentions differ between countries in the cross border Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. Non-positive intention for the booster vaccine is prevalent in all three countries of the EMR, but to a different extent, as shown in this study. Cross-border collaboration and sharing information and knowledge about vaccination strategies could play a role in limiting the impact of COVID-19.

Senior Friendly Communities: Designing an approach for cross-border exchange of public health policy.

Communities are generally responsible for creating health policies for people with dementia, people with late-life depression and informal caregivers. So far, the exchange of knowledge and best practices on older people's public health between communities has remained limited, especially across borders. The cross-border Interreg Senior Friendly Communities (SFC) approach focuses on older people's public health in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine, a border region of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It aims at supporting communities to promote healthy ageing, especially for people with dementia, people with late-life depression and informal caregivers. It makes use of the WHO's frameworks of Active and Healthy Ageing, with the pillars health, participation and security. The methodology of the SFC approach consists of a five-step approach: (1) creating an infrastructure for the SFC project (2); including communities (3); baseline assessments in the participating communities (4); creating an activity buffet of a variety of activities promoting older people's wellbeing; and (5) implementing the activities, conducting post-implementation assessments to measure the impact of SFC and creating a sustainability plan for communities to continue on this path. This paper discusses this five-step SFC approach that aims to address the limited use of cross-border exchange of health policies and best practices. It can serve as a guideline for other regions that deem the cross-border exchange of health policy valuable.