Carren Ginsburg1, Mark A Collinson2,3, F Xavier Gómez-Olivé2, Mark Gross4, Sadson Harawa2, Mark N Lurie4,5, Keith Mukondwa2, Chantel F Pheiffer4, Stephen Tollman2,3,6, Rebecca Wang4, Michael J White2,4. 1. Medical Research Council/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa. carren.ginsburg@wits.ac.za. 2. Medical Research Council/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa. 3. Department of Science and Innovation/ Medical Research Council, South African Population Research Infrastructure Network, Johannesburg, South Africa. 4. Population Studies and Training Centre, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 6. INDEPTH Network, Accra, Ghana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In South Africa, human geographic mobility is high as people engage in both permanent and temporary relocation, predominantly from rural to urban areas. Such mobility can compromise healthcare access and utilisation. The objective of this paper is to explore healthcare utilisation and its determinants in a cohort of internal migrants and permanent residents (non-migrants) originating from the Agincourt sub-district in South Africa's rural northeast. METHODS: A 5-year cohort study of 3800 individuals aged 18 to 40 commenced in 2017. Baseline data have been collected from 1764 Agincourt residents and 1334 temporary, mostly urban-based, migrants, and are analysed using bivariate analyses, logistic and multinomial regression models, and propensity score matching analysis. RESULTS: Health service utilisation differs sharply by migrant status and sex. Among those with a chronic condition, migrants had 0.33 times the odds of non-migrants to have consulted a health service in the preceding year, and males had 0.32 times the odds of females of having used health services. Of those who utilised services, migration status was further associated with the type of healthcare utilised, with 97% of non-migrant rural residents having accessed government facilities, while large proportions of migrants (31%) utilised private health services or consulted traditional healers (25%) in migrant destinations. The multinomial logistic regression analysis indicated that, in the presence of controls, migrants had 8.12 the relative risk of non-migrants for utilising private healthcare (versus the government-services-only reference category), and 2.40 the relative risk of non-migrants for using a combination of public and private sector facilities. These findings of differential utilisation hold under statistical adjustment for relevant controls and for underlying propensity to migrate. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants and non-migrants in the study population in South Africa were found to utilise health services differently, both in overall use and in the type of healthcare consulted. The study helps improve upon the limited stock of knowledge on how migrants interface with healthcare systems in low and middle-income country settings. Findings can assist in guiding policies and programmes to be directed more effectively to the populations most in need, and to drive locally adapted approaches to universal health coverage.
BACKGROUND: In South Africa, human geographic mobility is high as people engage in both permanent and temporary relocation, predominantly from rural to urban areas. Such mobility can compromise healthcare access and utilisation. The objective of this paper is to explore healthcare utilisation and its determinants in a cohort of internal migrants and permanent residents (non-migrants) originating from the Agincourt sub-district in South Africa's rural northeast. METHODS: A 5-year cohort study of 3800 individuals aged 18 to 40 commenced in 2017. Baseline data have been collected from 1764 Agincourt residents and 1334 temporary, mostly urban-based, migrants, and are analysed using bivariate analyses, logistic and multinomial regression models, and propensity score matching analysis. RESULTS: Health service utilisation differs sharply by migrant status and sex. Among those with a chronic condition, migrants had 0.33 times the odds of non-migrants to have consulted a health service in the preceding year, and males had 0.32 times the odds of females of having used health services. Of those who utilised services, migration status was further associated with the type of healthcare utilised, with 97% of non-migrant rural residents having accessed government facilities, while large proportions of migrants (31%) utilised private health services or consulted traditional healers (25%) in migrant destinations. The multinomial logistic regression analysis indicated that, in the presence of controls, migrants had 8.12 the relative risk of non-migrants for utilising private healthcare (versus the government-services-only reference category), and 2.40 the relative risk of non-migrants for using a combination of public and private sector facilities. These findings of differential utilisation hold under statistical adjustment for relevant controls and for underlying propensity to migrate. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants and non-migrants in the study population in South Africa were found to utilise health services differently, both in overall use and in the type of healthcare consulted. The study helps improve upon the limited stock of knowledge on how migrants interface with healthcare systems in low and middle-income country settings. Findings can assist in guiding policies and programmes to be directed more effectively to the populations most in need, and to drive locally adapted approaches to universal health coverage.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health and demographic surveillance system; Healthcare utilisation; Internal migration; Migrants; South Africa
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mark N Lurie; Brian G Williams; Khangelani Zuma; David Mkaya-Mwamburi; Geoff Garnett; Adriaan W Sturm; Michael D Sweat; Joel Gittelsohn; Salim S Abdool Karim Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Ibrahim Abubakar; Robert W Aldridge; Delan Devakumar; Miriam Orcutt; Rachel Burns; Mauricio L Barreto; Poonam Dhavan; Fouad M Fouad; Nora Groce; Yan Guo; Sally Hargreaves; Michael Knipper; J Jaime Miranda; Nyovani Madise; Bernadette Kumar; Davide Mosca; Terry McGovern; Leonard Rubenstein; Peter Sammonds; Susan M Sawyer; Kabir Sheikh; Stephen Tollman; Paul Spiegel; Cathy Zimmerman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Sara Mursleen; Lyubov Lytvyn; Marek Smieja; Lisa Dolovich; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Carren Ginsburg; Philippe Bocquier; Donatien Béguy; Sulaimon Afolabi; Kathleen Kahn; David Obor; Frank Tanser; Andrew Tomita; Marylene Wamukoya; Mark A Collinson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Carren Ginsburg; Mark A Collinson; F Xavier Gómez-Olivé; Sadson Harawa; Chantel F Pheiffer; Michael J White Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2022-02-17