Search

Background Despite a high burden of chronic and mental illness, asylum-seekers show low utilization of ambulatory specialist healthcare. Forgoing timely healthcare when facing access barriers may direct them toward emergency care. This paper examines interrelations of physical and mental health and utilization of ambulatory and emergency care, and explicitly addresses associations between the different types of care. Methods A structural equation model was applied to a sample of n = 136 asylum-seekers living in accommodation centers in Berlin, Germany. Utilization patterns of emergency care (outcome) and physical and mental ambulatory care (endogenous predictors) were estimated, while controlling for age, gender, chronic conditions, bodily pain, depression, anxiety, length of stay in Germany (exogenous predictors) and self-rated health (endogenous predictor). Results Associations were observed between ambulatory care utilization and poor self-rated health (0.207, CI: 0.05; 0.364), chronic illness (0.096, CI: 0.017; 0.175) and bodily pain (0.019, CI: 0.002; 0.036); between mental healthcare utilization and anxiety (0.202, CI: 0.051; 0.352); and between emergency care utilization and poor self-rated health (0.621, CI: 0.059; 1.183), chronic illness (0.287, CI: 0.012; 0.563), mental healthcare utilization (0.842, CI: 0.148; 1.535) and anxiety (0.790, CI: 0.141; 1.438) (values in parentheses show estimated regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals). We found no associations between the utilization of ambulatory and emergency care. Conclusions Our study generates mixed results concerning associations between healthcare needs and ambulatory and emergency care utilization among asylum-seekers. We found no evidence that low utilization of ambulatory care contributes to emergency care utilization; neither did we find evidence that ambulatory treatment obviates the need to seek emergency care. Our results indicate that higher physical healthcare needs and anxiety are associated with more utilization of both ambulatory and emergency care; whereas healthcare needs related to depression tend to remain unmet. Both the undirected and under-utilization of health services may reflect navigation and accessibility issues. To facilitate more needs-based and effective healthcare utilization and thus contribute to health equity, support services such as interpretation and care navigation as well as outreach are warranted.

Background The COVID-19 syndemic reveals social and health inequalities, putting marginalized groups such as migrants at greater risk. Yet health systems fail to routinely monitor the health of migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons. Our systematic review provides an up-to-date synthesis of the empirical evidence on COVID-19 infection risk, transmission, outcome of disease and risk of severe course of disease among migrant populations. It further aims to compile extant evidence on COVID-19 vaccination coverage among these groups, and on the effects of pandemic control measures on their health. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we registered a review protocol, searched 14 scientific databases and 4 pre-print servers using the WHO database of global literature on COVID-19, and hand-searched relevant websites for grey literature. The search period covers the time from 12/2019 to 11/30/2021. Articles in English, German and Spanish and all study designs were included. Results A total of 6966 references were identified for title and abstract screening. 518 records were screened in full-text, out of which 204 articles were included so far (conflict solving at full-text stage and data extraction are ongoing). Our review presents a broad landscape of different study designs, migrant populations and COVID-19 outcomes. Based on previous work, we expect to find a higher risk of infection in migrants and their disproportionate share among COVID-19 cases, and consolidate the (mental) health impacts of pandemic control measures. Our preliminary findings indicate a vast knowledge gap on vaccination coverage among migrant groups. Conclusions Two years into the syndemic, this review summarizes the global empirical evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 syndemic on migrant populations. With health systems often lacking related data, the review provides an important evidence base for the consideration of migrants in future pandemic preparedness policies. Key messages • The systematic review provides an up-to-date synthesis of the empirical evidence on COVID-19 among diverse migrant populations globally. • Knowledge on vaccination coverage in migrants remains patchy.

Background Access to healthcare is restricted for newly arriving asylum seekers and refugees (ASR) in many receiving countries, which may lead to inequalities in health. In Germany, regular access and full entitlement to healthcare (equivalent to statutory health insurance, SHI) is only granted after a waiting time of 18 months. During this time of restricted entitlements, local authorities implement different access models to regulate asylum seekers’ access to healthcare: the electronic health card (EHC) or the healthcare voucher (HV). This paper examines inequalities in access to healthcare by comparing healthcare utilization by ASR under the terms of different local models (i.e., regular access equivalent to SHI, EHC, and HV). Methods We used data from three population-based, cross-sectional surveys among newly arrived ASR (N=863) and analyzed six outcome measures: specialist and general practitioner (GP) utilization, unmet needs for specialist and GP services, emergency department use and avoidable hospitalization. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for all outcome measures, while considering need by adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and health-related covariates. Results Compared to ASR with regular access, ASR under the HV model showed lower needs-adjusted odds of specialist utilization (OR=0.41 [0.24-0.66]) while ASR under the EHC model did not differ from ASR with regular access in any of the outcomes. The comparison between EHC and HV model showed higher odds for specialist utilization under the EHC model as compared to the HV model (OR=2.39 [1.03-5.52]). GP and emergency department utilization, unmet needs and avoidable hospitalization did not show significant differences in any of the fully adjusted models. Conclusion ASR using the HV are disadvantaged in their access to healthcare compared to ASR having either an EHC or regular access. Given equal need, they use specialist services less. The identified inequalities constitute inequities in access to healthcare that could be reduced by policy change from HV to the EHC model during the initial 18 months waiting time, or by granting ASR regular healthcare access upon arrival. Potential patterns of differences in GP utilization, unmet needs, emergency department use and avoidable hospitalization between the models deserve further exploration in future studies. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-021-01607-y.