| Literature DB >> 29769017 |
Laura F Goodman1, Guy W Jensen1, Joseph M Galante1, Diana L Farmer1, Stephanie Taché2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over one million asylum seekers were registered in Germany in 2016, most from Syria and Afghanistan. The Refugee Convention guarantees access to healthcare, however delivery mechanisms remain heterogeneous. There is an urgent need for more data describing the health conditions of asylum seekers to guide best practices for healthcare delivery. In this study, we describe the state of health of asylum seekers presenting to a multi-specialty primary care refugee clinic.Entities:
Keywords: Asylum seeker; Epidemiology; Health care; Health systems; Public health; Refugee
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29769017 PMCID: PMC5956552 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-018-0758-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Fam Pract ISSN: 1471-2296 Impact factor: 2.497
Fig. 1Germany’s asylum seeker healthcare schema. After first arrival, asylum seekers can receive emergency care at any time, and receive screening at centralized reception centers. During this initial period up to 12 weeks, asylum seekers have State insurance. After 3 months, limited access is granted and insurance is provided by the municipality. This lasts up to 15 months, after which full access is possible. Permission to base this figure on a similar one previously published was granted by the author S. Bauhoff [22]
Patient demographics and insurance status
| Total ( | State Insurance ( | Combined Other: All Non-State ( | City of Dresden ( | Unaccomp-anied Youth ( | Other (n = 4, 0.15%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years (mean (SD)) | 25.3 (14.9) | 25.2 (15.6) | 26.1 (11.9) | 27.0 (12.0) | 16.0 (2.94) | 30.0 (10.0) | 0.0476 |
| Male (n, %) | 1967 (71.4) | 1535 (68.8) | 432 (82.9) | 385 (81.6) | 43 (95.6) | 4 (100) | < 0.001 |
| Minors (n, %) | 804 (29.2) | 683 (30.6) | 121 (23.2) | 76 (16.1) | 45 (100) | 0 | 0.001 |
| Elderly (n, %) | 29 (1.1) | 28 (1.3) | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.2) | 0 | 1 | 0.017 |
Patient mean age, number and proportion with male gender, number and proportion minors, and number and proportion elderly, in entire population and by insurance status. State insurance is granted upon first arrival in Germany. Other insurance statuses require greater than 3 months in Germany to obtain, indicating these patients were in the country over 3 months. The last known insurance status of patients seen more than once was used. Mann-Whitney U test was used to obtain p values for continuous outcomes, and Pearson’s chi-squared test for binary outcomes, comparing state to non-state insurance, 1-sided Fisher’s exact chi-squared was used for the elderly category
Patient demographics by diagnosis category
| Diagnosis category (ICD-10 Group) | Diagnoses (n, %) | Patients (n) | Age (mean years ± SD) | Age 95% CI | Proportion Male (95% CI) | Proportion Minors (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 6271 (100) | 2753 | 25.3 ± 14.9 | 24.8–25.9 | 0.71 (0.70–0.73) | – | 0.29 (0.28–0.31) | – |
| Respiratory (J) | 1090 (17.4) | 849 | 21.1 ± 15.9 | 20.0–22.1 | 0.68 (0.64–0.71) | 0.029 | 0.43 (0.4–0.47) | < 0.001 |
| Miscellaneous Abnormalities (R) | 881 (14.1) | 667 | 26.1 ± 14.8 | 25.0–27.3 | 0.69 (0.66–0.73) | 0.215 | 0.26 (0.22–0.29) | 0.057 |
| Infection (A, B) | 678 (10.8) | 546 | 18.9 ± 14.3 | 17.7–20.1 | 0.71 (0.67–0.75) | 0.925 | 0.47 (0.43–0.51) | < 0.001 |
| Musculoskeletal/ Connective Tissues (M) | 583 (9.3) | 384 | 32.6 ± 12.9 | 31.3–33.8 | 0.73 (0.69–0.78) | 0.415 | 0.083 (0.06–0.12) | < 0.001 |
| Digestive (K) | 427 (6.8) | 314 | 27.8 ± 14.6 | 26.2–29.4 | 0.75 (0.70–0.80) | 0.161 | 0.21 (0.17–0.26) | 0.002 |
| Injury/ Poisoning (S, T) | 372 (5.9) | 261 | 26.1 ± 12.4 | 24.5–27.6 | 0.84 (0.79–0.88) | < 0.001 | 0.23 (0.18–0.29) | 0.034 |
| Mental/ Behavioral (F) | 322 (5.1) | 172 | 29.4 ± 12.2 | 27.5–31.2 | 0.65 (0.58–0.72) | 0.077 | 0.15 (0.1–0.21) | < 0.001 |
The diagnosis categories included patients with ruled out diagnoses in those categories, and the categories are not mutually exclusive. Tests of proportion (chi-squared) were used to obtain p-values. Not shown are categories comprising fewer than 5 % of diagnoses
Fig. 2Diagnostic categories by insurance (arrival) status. Comparing the proportion by insurance status state vs. other **p < 0.001 *p = 0.0043, other differences were not significant. Standard error bars are shown