Dataset Information

Does refugee status matter? Medical needs of newly arrived asylum seekers and resettlement refugees - a retrospective observational study of diagnoses in a primary care setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Providing adequate healthcare to newly arrived refugees is considered one of the significant challenges for the German healthcare system. These refugees can be classified mainly into two groups: asylum seekers (who have applied for asylum after arrival in Germany and are waiting for the refugee-status decision) and resettlement refugees (who have already been granted asylum status before arriving in Germany). Whereas earlier studies have explored the health status of asylum seekers especially in terms of mental and behavioural disorders and infectious diseases without distinguishing between these two groups, our study aims to evaluate possible relationships of asylum status and medical needs of these two groups with a special focus on mental and behavioural disorders and infectious diseases.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, collected data on all asylum-seeker and resettlement-refugee patients (N = 2252) of a German reception centre (August 2017 to August 2018) is analysed by absolute and relative frequencies and medians. Patient data, collected by chart review, include age, gender, country of origin, asylum status, and diagnoses (ICD-10). To describe the relationship between sociodemographic factors (including asylum status) and diagnoses, we used tests of significance and bivariate correlations with Spearman correlation coefficients. All collected data are pseudonymised.

Results

Of all 2252 patients, 43% were resettlement refugees. In almost all ICD-10 categories, asylum seekers received significantly more diagnoses than resettlement refugees. According to our data, asylum seekers presented with mental and behavioural disorders nine times more often (9%) than resettlement refugees (1%). In the case of infectious diseases, the results are mixed: asylum seekers were twice as frequently (11%) diagnosed with certain infectious and parasitic diseases than resettlement refugees (5%), but resettlement refugees were treated twice as often (22% of the asylum seekers and 41% of the resettlement refugees) for diseases of the respiratory system, of which 84% were acute respiratory infections (in both groups).

Conclusion

This study indicates that patients with unregulated migration more frequently present symptoms of psychiatric diseases and somatoform symptoms than resettlement refugees. A health policy approach within migration policy should aim to enable persecuted persons to migrate under regulated and safe conditions.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00013076, retrospectively registered on 29.09.2017.

SUBMITTER: Kleinert E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6700982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOver the past decade, the number of refugees arriving in the United States (U.S.) has increased dramatically. Refugees arrive with unmet health needs and may face barriers when seeking care. However, little is known about how refugees perceive and access care when acutely ill. The goal of this study was to understand barriers to access of acute care by newly arrived refugees, and identify potential improvements from refugees and resettlement agencies.MethodsThis was an in-depth, qualitative interview study of refugees and employees from refugee resettlement and post-resettlement agencies in a city in the Northeast U.S. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded independently by two investigators. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. We analyzed transcripts using a modified grounded theory approach.ResultsInterviews were completed with 16 refugees and 12 employees from refugee resettlement/post-resettlement agencies. Participants reported several barriers to accessing acute care including challenges understanding the U.S. healthcare system, difficulty scheduling timely outpatient acute care visits, significant language barriers in all acute care settings, and confusion over the intricacies of health insurance. The novelty and complexity of the U.S. healthcare system drives refugees to resettlement agencies for assistance. Resettlement agency employees express concern with directing refugees to appropriate levels of care and report challenges obtaining timely access to sick visits. While receiving emergency department (ED) care, refugees experience communication barriers due to limitations in consistent interpretation services.ConclusionRefugees face multiple barriers when accessing acute care. Interventions in the ED, outpatient settings, and in resettlement agencies, have the potential to reduce barriers to care. Examples could include interpretation services that allow for clinic phone scheduling and easier access to interpreter services within the ED. Additionally, extending the Refugee Medical Assistance program may limit gaps in insurance coverage and avoid insurance-related barriers to seeking care.