ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE INTEGRATION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE SURVEY AMONG MEDICAL FRESHMEN IN SERBIA
Pro EU integration viewpoint of medical freshman
Abstract
Aim: The study aimed to identify factors associated with pro-integration attitudes to the European Union (EU) among Serbian medical freshmen to promote integration.
Methods: In the period from 2010 to 2021, within the scope of the distance learning module "Medicine & Society", a total of 1333 freshmen of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Belgrade (1333/1940, i.e., response rate 68.7%) has responded to the semi-structured questionnaire inquiring their perception of the EU integration advantages and disadvantages.
The association of the pro-EU attitude (vs cons-EU / undecided) with perceived advantages and disadvantages was presented using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results: A total of 48.5% of respondents were pro-EU integration, 42.7% were undecided and 8.9% were cons-EU (i.e., 585, 525, and 107, respectively) integration of Serbia. The pro-EU attitude was 55% more likely among male respondents (OR: 1.55, 95% CI:1.14-2.10), among respondents who were able to identify advantages of EU integration such as easier mobility (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.80-4.57), variety of job opportunities (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.45-2.93), and among those for whom competition at the EU healthcare market is not a disadvantage of the EU-integration (OR: 8.56, 95% CI: 1.79-40.92). The pro-EU attitude was less likely among respondents who identified high emigration of medical doctors as a disadvantage of the EU integration, by 45% (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36-0.84).
Conclusion: During the last decade, the share of Serbian medical freshmen with pro-EU and undecided attitudes suggests the need for a stronger international initiative of EU and national actors. Advantages such as easier mobility, competition in the EU healthcare market, and a variety of employment opportunities promote an integrationist attitude, in contrast to the large emigration of medical doctors.
References
Pjevović D, Subotic S. EU Sentiments of Serbia’s citizens. Policy. Belgrade; 2019.
Feigin VL, Stark BA, Johnson CO, Roth GA, Bisignano C, Abady GG, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(10):1–26.
Stojković D, Glišić M. Defence and Peace Economics Serbia ’ s Military Neutrality : Is It Economically Beneficial ? Def Peace Econ. 2018;00(00):1–17.
OSF. Working Together to Address Health Workforce Mobility in Europe Recommendations for Action. 2020.
Buchan J, Wismar M, Glinos IA BJ, editor. Health professional mobility in a changing Europe: new dynamics, mobile individuals and diverse responses. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2014.
Bonica A, Rosenthal H, Rothman DJ. Physician activism in American politics : The opposition to the Price nomination. PlosOne. 2019;e0215802.
Virchow R. Der Armenarzt. Med Reform. 1848;18:125–7.
Winslow CE. THE UNTILLED FIELDS OF PUBLIC HEALTH. Science. 1920 Jan;51(1306):23–33.
European Commission. Serbia 2020 Report. Brussels; 2020.
Herfs PGP. Aspects of medical migration with particular reference to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12(59):1–7.
