International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 805–807 | Cite as

What Roma nonadherence is likely and what drives it? Reply to Broz and Nunes

  • Andrej BelakEmail author
  • Andrea Madarasova Geckova
  • Jitse P. van Dijk
  • Sijmen A. Reijneveld
Letter to the Editor

We thank Broz and Nunes for appreciating our study on the drivers of nonadherence to medical recommendations among Roma in a segregated Roma settlement in Slovakia (Belak et al. 2018; Broz and Nunes 2019). In our reply, we first devote two sections to answer two general questions of the authors about Roma nonadherence. Next, we respond to their additional remarks and suggestions regarding related assessment tools. We close with a brief summary.

Do segregated Roma value their health less compared to poor non-Roma on average?

The segregated Roma we studied probably do value their health less than poor non-Roma. In two related previous studies (Belak et al. 2017, 2018), we found that the conviction among these Roma that adherence to medical recommendations is not appropriate for Roma, naturally and morally, contributed significantly to their nonadherence. We have already discussed in these papers that similar reasoning has been identified among other Central and East European (CEE) Roma,...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Belak A, Geckova AM, van Dijk JP, Reijneveld SA (2017) Health-endangering everyday settings and practices in a rural segregated Roma settlement in Slovakia: a descriptive summary from an exploratory longitudinal case study. BMC Public Health 17(1):128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belak A, Madarasova Geckova A, van Dijk JP, Reijneveld SA (2018) Why don’t segregated Roma do more for their health? an explanatory framework from an ethnographic study in Slovakia. Int J Public Health 63(9):1123–1131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourgois P, Holmes SM, Sue K, Quesada J (2017) Structural vulnerability: operationalizing the concept to address health disparities in clinical care. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 92(3):299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broz J, Nunes MA (2019) A commentary on “Why don’t segregated Roma do more for their health?” by Belak et al. Int J Public Health. Google Scholar
  5. EUFRA (2018) A persisting concern: anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion. European Union Fundamental Rights Agency, Luxembourg, p 60Google Scholar
  6. Kleinman A, Benson P (2006) Anthropology in the clinic: the problem of cultural competency and how to fix it. PLoS Med 3(10):e294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Petek D, Rotar Pavlic D, Svab I, Lolic D (2006) Attitudes of Roma toward smoking: qualitative study in Slovenia. Croat Med J 47(2):344–347Google Scholar
  8. Shmidt V (2019) The politics of disability in interwar and socialist Czechoslovakia: segregating in the name of the nation. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Singer MK, Dressler W, George S, Panel TNE (2016) Culture: the missing link in health research. Soc Sci Med 170:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Kosice Institute for Society and HealthP.J. Safarik UniversityKosiceSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of Health Psychology, Faculty of MedicineP.J. Safarik UniversityKosiceSlovakia
  3. 3.Department of Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center GroningenUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of General Anthropology, Faculty of HumanitiesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.Olomouc University Society and Health InstitutePalacky University OlomoucOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations