Dataset Information

Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in the use of primary medical care; a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies on differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in health care utilization vary with respect to the extent and direction of differences in use. Therefore, our study aimed to provide a systematic overview of the existing research on differences in primary care utilization between immigrant groups and the majority population.

Methods

For this review PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Sociofile, Web of Science and Current Contents were consulted. Study selection and quality assessment was performed using a predefined protocol by 2 reviewers independently of each other. Only original, quantitative, peer-reviewed papers were taken into account. To account for this hierarchical structure, logistic multilevel analyses were performed to examine the extent to which differences are found across countries and immigrant groups. Differences in primary care use were related to study characteristics, strength of the primary care system and methodological quality.

Results

A total of 37 studies from 7 countries met all inclusion criteria. Remarkably, studies performed within the US more often reported a significant lower use among immigrant groups as compared to the majority population than the other countries. As studies scored higher on methodological quality, the likelihood of reporting significant differences increased. Adjustment for health status and use of culture-/language-adjusted procedures during the data collection were negatively related to reporting significant differences in the studies.

Conclusion

Our review underlined the need for careful design in studies of differences in health care use between immigrant groups and the majority population. The results from studies concerning differences between immigrant and the majority population in primary health care use performed within the US might be interpreted as a reflection of a weaker primary care system in the US compared to Europe and Canada.

SUBMITTER: Uiters E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2689181 | biostudies-literature | 2009 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in the use of primary medical care; a systematic review.

Uiters Ellen E Devillé Walter W Foets Marleen M Spreeuwenberg Peter P Groenewegen Peter P PP

BMC health services research 20090511

<h4>Background</h4>Studies on differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in health care utilization vary with respect to the extent and direction of differences in use. Therefore, our study aimed to provide a systematic overview of the existing research on differences in primary care utilization between immigrant groups and the majority population.<h4>Methods</h4>For this review PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Sociofile, Web of Science and Current Contents were consulted. Study selection a ...[more]

PMID: 19426567

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth behaviours are important determinants of health and adoption of unhealthy behaviour is considered as one of the mechanisms through which immigrants' health changes over time in the host country. The change in health behaviours over time can contribute either to improving or worsening the overall health status of immigrants. Despite being the important mediators for the change in overall health status and chronic health conditions, no previous review (either general or systematic) has examined differences in key health behaviours simultaneously between immigrants and non-immigrants. This study aims to provide a systematic overview of the current global literature on differences in key health behaviours (that is, tobacco smoking, physical activity and alcohol drinking) between immigrant and non-immigrant groups.Methods/designEmpirical studies in English language reporting quantitative data simultaneously on both immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be considered for this systematic review. Electronic scientific searches will be conducted on seven databases to identify relevant studies of interests: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Global Health, SocINDEX and ProQuest. In addition, Google/Google Scholar will be used to find the relevant studies and personal contact with experts will also be undertaken. Titles, abstracts and keywords of studies identified in the search strategies will be screened for inclusion criteria. The authors will select the studies following the PRISMA guidelines. The quality of included studies will be appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. A descriptive summary statistics of included studies will describe the study designs, socio-demographic characteristics, and the exposure (immigrant and non-immigrant groups) and outcome (key health behaviours) measures. P-values and confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between exposure and key health behaviours will also be reported.DiscussionThis systematic review will facilitate a better understanding of differences in key health behaviours between immigrant and non-immigrant counterparts. It will provide a rigorous and reliable research base for future research and advance information on key health behaviours for a range of immigrant groups compared to non-immigrants in the high-migrant-receiving countries.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014008688).

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems, globally, are attempting to strengthen primary care to promote a population-health management approach to care provision, incentivising prevention and self-management. This paper evaluates the "Enhanced Primary Care" model implemented in a geographical region in England. Enhanced Primary Care introduces a new non-medical role, health coaches, to the traditional primary care team to provide additional support for patients with chronic conditions. We evaluate effects of health coaching on patient outcomes using a quasi-experiment.MethodsWe estimate the programme's effects on health status (EQ-5D-5L, physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and resilience), health behaviour (smoking habit), experience of care (person-centeredness and continuity of care), and health care (primary care) utilisation using data from 3.5 million respondents to the national GP Patient Surveys between 2013 and 2017. We use a weighted difference-in-differences design to compare changes in outcomes over time between intervention practices and comparable control practices in the rest of England. We conduct our main analysis on multimorbid patients and additional analysis on all patients to assess population-level effects.ResultsFor multimorbid patients, we find reductions in psychological wellbeing (short and medium term) of -0.0174 (95% confidence interval -0.0283 to -0.0065), relative difference -2% from the pre-intervention mean; and person-centeredness (short term) of -0.0356 (-0.0530 to -0.0183), -4%. We find no significant effects on other outcome measures. For population-level effects, in the short term we find reductions in primary care utilisation of -0.0331 (-0.0448 to -0.0214), -5%. All other outcomes are not consistently statistically significant.ConclusionsOur results show that there is very little effect of health coaching on patient experience and outcomes in the short-to-medium term (up to 14 months). Introduction of Enhanced Primary Care was associated with slightly lower psychological wellbeing and person-centeredness amongst multimorbid patients (it might be initially difficult for patients to adjust to the model). However, it was also associated with a decline in primary care visits at the population-level (potentially freeing up practitioner time for more complex patients). The results raise important questions regarding primary care workforce changes advocated in the NHS Long Term Plan, and the time horizon of any benefits of prevention strategies.

Project description:BackgroundDespite a substantial increase in the adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) in primary health care settings, the use of advanced EMR features is limited. Several studies have identified both barriers and facilitating factors that influence primary care physicians' (PCPs) use of advanced EMR features and the maturation of their EMR use. The purpose of this study is to explore and identify the factors that impact PCPs' mature use of EMRs.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook. The MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched from 1946 to June 13, 2019. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for eligibility; to be included, studies had to address factors influencing PCPs' mature use of EMRs. A narrative synthesis was conducted to collate study findings and to report on patterns identified across studies. The quality of the studies was also appraised.ResultsOf the 1893 studies identified, 14 were included in this study. Reported factors that influenced PCPs' mature use of EMRs fell into one of the following 5 categories: technology, people, organization, resources, and policy. Concerns about the EMR system's functionality, lack of physician awareness of EMR functionality, limited physician availability to learn more about EMRs, the habitual use of successfully completing clinical tasks using only basic EMR features, business-oriented organizational objectives, lack of vendor training, limited resource availability, and lack of physician readiness were reported as barriers to PCPs' mature use of EMRs. The motivation of physicians, user satisfaction, coaching and peer mentoring, EMR experience, gender, physician perception, transition planning for changes in roles and work processes, team-based care, adequate technical support and training, sharing resources, practices affiliated with an integrated delivery system, financial incentives, and policies to increase EMR use all had a favorable impact on PCPs' use of advanced EMR features.ConclusionsBy using a narrative synthesis to synthesize the evidence, we identified interrelated factors influencing the mature use of EMRs by PCPs. The findings underline the need to provide adequate training and policies that facilitate the mature use of EMRs by PCPs.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019137526.

Project description:BackgroundThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model has several components to improve care for patients with high comorbidity, including greater access to face-to-face primary care.ObjectiveWe examined whether high-comorbidity patients had larger increases in primary care provider (PCP) visits attributable to PCMH implementation in a large integrated health system relative to other patients enrolled in primary care.Design, subjects and main measuresThis longitudinal study examined a 1 % random sample of 9.3 million patients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) at any time between 2003 and 2013. Face-to-face visits with PCPs per quarter were identified through VHA administrative data. Comorbidity was measured using the Gagne index and patients with a weighted score of ≥ 2 were defined as high comorbidity. We applied interrupted time-series models to estimate marginal changes in PCP visits attributable to PCMH implementation. Differences in marginal changes were calculated across comorbidity groups (high vs. low). Analyses were stratified by age group to account for Medicare eligibility.Key resultsAmong age 65+ patients, PCMH was associated with greater PCP visits starting four and ten quarters following implementation for high- and low-comorbidity patients, respectively. Changes were larger for high-comorbidity patients (eight to 11 greater visits per 1000 patients per quarter). Among patients age < 65, PCMH was associated with greater visits for high-comorbidity patients starting eight quarters following implementation, but fewer visits for low-comorbidity patients in all quarters. The difference in visit changes across groups ranged from 18 to 67 visits per 1000 patients per quarter.ConclusionsIncreases in PCP visits attributable to PCMH were greater among patients with higher comorbidity. Health systems implementing PCMH should account for population-level comorbidity burden when planning for PCMH-related changes in PCP utilization.

Dataset Information

Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in the use of primary medical care; a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in the use of primary medical care; a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets