Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

3 results

  • 19 - Private Life and Data Protection in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

  • from Part V - Cross-Cutting Issues of Fundamental Rights in the AFSJ
  • Edited by Sara Iglesias Sánchez, Maribel González Pascual, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
  • Book:
    Fundamental Rights in the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
    Published online:
    06 August 2021
    Print publication:
    29 July 2021, pp 373-393

  • Summary

    Within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), different mechanisms have been set up to collect, store and exchange personal data for the purpose of law enforcement and border and immigration control. These instruments provide for the exchange of information between judicial and law enforcement authorities, transfer of data to third states, and the setting-up of large-scale databases such as the Schengen Information System, Eurodac, and the Visa Information System. This chapter analyses the use of these databases, the involvement of third parties, and the principle of interoperability from the perspective of the right to privacy and data protection. Focusing on general principles such as purpose limitation, prohibition of automated decision-making, and the right to effective judicial protection, it is argued that a large number of legal rules does not necessarily result in a high level of protection.

  • Barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking for mental health conditions and substance misuse: multi-perspective focus group study within the military

  • Rebecca Bogaers, Elbert Geuze, Jaap van Weeghel, Fenna Leijten, Dike van de Mheen, Piia Varis, Andrea Rozema, Evelien Brouwers
  • Journal:
    BJPsych Open / Volume 6 / Issue 6 / November 2020
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 November 2020, e146
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Background

    Globally, millions are exposed to stressors at work that increase their vulnerability to develop mental health conditions and substance misuse (such as soldiers, policemen, doctors). However, these types of professionals especially are expected to be strong and healthy, and this contrast may worsen their treatment gap. Although the treatment gap in the military has been studied before, perspectives of different stakeholders involved have largely been ignored, even though they play an important role.

    Aims

    To study the barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking in the military, from three different perspectives.

    Method

    In total, 46 people participated, divided into eight homogeneous focus groups, including three perspectives: soldiers with mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 20), soldiers without mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 10) and mental health professionals (n = 16). Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was done by applying a general inductive approach using ATLAS.ti-8.4.4 software.

    Results

    Five barriers for treatment-seeking were identified: fear of negative career consequences, fear of social rejection, confidentiality concerns, the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture and practical barriers. Three facilitators were identified: social support, accessibility and knowledge, and healthcare within the military. The views of the different stakeholder groups were highly congruent.

    Conclusions

    Barriers for treatment-seeking were mostly stigma related (fear of career consequences, fear of social rejection and the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture) and this was widely recognised by all groups. Social support from family, peers, supervisors and professionals were identified as important facilitators. A decrease in the treatment gap for mental health conditions and substance misuse is needed and these findings provide direction for future research and destigmatising interventions.