INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation services are considerably less used by persons with a migration background of working age in Germany than by persons without migration background. One reason could be access barriers. They can arise both from the structures of the health/rehabilitation system as well as from influences of the personal environment, e. g. financial burdens incurred through the use of rehabilitation or cultural expectations. In addition to the migration status, other factors such as country of origin, reasons for immigration, length of stay as well as the religious affiliation and social status could influence the utilization of medical rehabilitation. It was examined to what extent differences in utilisation are due to the migration background and to migration-independent personal barriers to access. METHODS: The lidA-study is a nationwide, representative prospective cohort study among employees with insurable employment born in 1959 and 1965 with a focus on work, age, health and employment. Data from the first (2011) and the second wave (2014) were combined for the analyses. In addition to bivariate analyses to describe the sample according to migration status, logistic regression analyses were carried out to estimate the odds ratios for the influence of migration background or nationality and other factors on the use of a medical rehabilitation measure. RESULTS: The chance of receiving medical rehabilitation is increased for migrants of the 1st generation (odds ratio (OR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-2.25). If predominantly or exclusively no German is spoken at home, this could be associated with a comparatively much lower chance of utilisation (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.28-1.15). Because only nationality is often available in routine data to determine the status of migration, another model only considers migrants and 2nd generation nationals and examines the influence of nationality on utilisation. A foreign nationality was not associated with a higher utilisation (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.55-2.08). DISCUSSION: Results of previous studies on the use of medical rehabilitation for people with a migration background are inconsistent. This could be due to different examined population groups, different indications for rehabilitation, a temporal change in utilisation and the various study designs as well as data sources. We found a higher use of medical rehabilitation services by persons with a migrant background (1st generation) compared to non-migrant persons. One reason could be our more precise definition of the migration background compared to analyses of routine data. If predominantly or exclusively another language than German is spoken at home, the utilisation tends to be lower. The finding coincides with a lack of German language skills described as an access barrier in the literature. Thieme. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation services are considerably less used by persons with a migration background of working age in Germany than by persons without migration background. One reason could be access barriers. They can arise both from the structures of the health/rehabilitation system as well as from influences of the personal environment, e. g. financial burdens incurred through the use of rehabilitation or cultural expectations. In addition to the migration status, other factors such as country of origin, reasons for immigration, length of stay as well as the religious affiliation and social status could influence the utilization of medical rehabilitation. It was examined to what extent differences in utilisation are due to the migration background and to migration-independent personal barriers to access. METHODS: The lidA-study is a nationwide, representative prospective cohort study among employees with insurable employment born in 1959 and 1965 with a focus on work, age, health and employment. Data from the first (2011) and the second wave (2014) were combined for the analyses. In addition to bivariate analyses to describe the sample according to migration status, logistic regression analyses were carried out to estimate the odds ratios for the influence of migration background or nationality and other factors on the use of a medical rehabilitation measure. RESULTS: The chance of receiving medical rehabilitation is increased for migrants of the 1st generation (odds ratio (OR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-2.25). If predominantly or exclusively no German is spoken at home, this could be associated with a comparatively much lower chance of utilisation (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.28-1.15). Because only nationality is often available in routine data to determine the status of migration, another model only considers migrants and 2nd generation nationals and examines the influence of nationality on utilisation. A foreign nationality was not associated with a higher utilisation (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.55-2.08). DISCUSSION: Results of previous studies on the use of medical rehabilitation for people with a migration background are inconsistent. This could be due to different examined population groups, different indications for rehabilitation, a temporal change in utilisation and the various study designs as well as data sources. We found a higher use of medical rehabilitation services by persons with a migrant background (1st generation) compared to non-migrant persons. One reason could be our more precise definition of the migration background compared to analyses of routine data. If predominantly or exclusively another language than German is spoken at home, the utilisation tends to be lower. The finding coincides with a lack of German language skills described as an access barrier in the literature. Thieme. All rights reserved.