| Literature DB >> 34738165 |
Young-Kyu Shin1, Veera Koskinen2, Anne Kouvonen2,3, Teemu Kemppainen4,5, Antero Olakivi2, Sirpa Wrede2,6, Laura Kemppainen2.
Abstract
This study examines the association between digital information technology (DIT) use and the utilization of transnational healthcare (THC) in older migrants, and investigates how this relationship depends on social integration or perceived discrimination in health services in the destination country. The data from a population-based study conducted in Finland in 2019, which targeted Russian-speaking residents aged 50 and above (n = 1082) nationwide, are analyzed. The analysis demonstrates that those who had a high level of DIT use were significantly more likely to use THC than those who had a low level of use. However, the findings do not show that the relationship depends on social integration or perceived discrimination. Older migrants can actively use transnational networks to address their health and well-being issues by using DIT and seeking healthcare abroad. Their health service use can be illustrated as an active process involving various geographical domains.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Digital information technology; Discrimination; Integration; Migrants; Migration; Older adults; Transnational healthcare
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34738165 PMCID: PMC8766379 DOI: 10.1007/s10903-021-01301-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immigr Minor Health ISSN: 1557-1912
Descriptive statistics
| % | Total number of respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| 25.1 | 1053 | |
| 1082 | ||
| Low | 23.1 | |
| High | 36.2 | |
| No response | 40.7 | |
| Predicted score from the dimension for DIT use based on MCA (mean) | 0.000 | |
| Predicted score from the dimension for DIT use based on MCA (SD) | 1.001 | |
| 1. Smartphone | 84.6 | 965 |
| 2. Tablet PC | 54.5 | 841 |
| 3. Laptop or PC | 85.7 | 982 |
| 4. Electronic identification | 78.4 | 937 |
| 5. Frequency of Internet use | 1067 | |
| Never use | 6.8 | |
| Less than once a week | 2.6 | |
| At least once a week | 3.4 | |
| (Almost) Every day | 29.8 | |
| Several times a day | 57.4 | |
| | ||
| 6. Messages or calls | 87.2 | 981 |
| 7. Banking | 87.0 | 1010 |
| 8. Reading news | 90.7 | 1033 |
| 9. Social media | 63.1 | 1000 |
| 10. Accessing health and social care | 57.6 | 975 |
| 11. Accessing other public services | 58.7 | 963 |
| 12. Viewing personal health data | 37.2 | 948 |
| 13. Looking for health information | 66.3 | 980 |
| 14. Accessing healthcare services and consultations from abroad | 11.6 | 933 |
| 15. Contact with peer support groups | 19.1 | 943 |
| 16. Comparing healthcare services (quality and prices) | 24.9 | 943 |
| 17. Other | 67.3 | 906 |
| Predicted score from the dimension for social integration in Finland based on MCA (mean) | 0.000 | 906 |
| Predicted score from the dimension for social integration in Finland based on MCA (SD) | 1.001 | |
| 1. Finnish citizenship | 49.0 | 1071 |
| 2. Received education in Finland | 37.4 | 1069 |
| 3. The length of residence in Finland | 1052 | |
| < 5 years | 25.5 | |
| 5–9 years | 21.4 | |
| 10–14 years | 21.0 | |
| 15 + years | 32.1 | |
| 4. Following Finnish media | 998 | |
| Daily | 45.4 | |
| Weekly | 26.8 | |
| Monthly | 9.3 | |
| Less often than monthly or never | 18.4 | |
| 5. Command of Finnish or Swedish language | 1019 | |
| Never use | 11.5 | |
| Basic | 50.7 | |
| Medium | 13.9 | |
| High | 23.9 | |
| Experience of discrimination in Finnish healthcare services | 16.7 | 1043 |
| Woman | 43.1 | 1082 |
| Age: 65 years or older | 39.7 | 1082 |
| Tertiary education | 50.6 | 1082 |
| Married or cohabiting | 73.6 | 1082 |
| In paid work | 39.4 | 1082 |
| High monthly household income: more than €2499 | 19.7 | 1082 |
| Financial hardship | 34.5 | 1064 |
| Chronic illness | 82.8 | 1082 |
| Accessed healthcare services in Finland during the last 12 months | 84.6 | 1082 |
| Visited country of origin during the last 12 months | 79.1 | 1075 |
Estimates of logistic regression models on accessing THC
| I: Bivariate models | II: Full model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | Sig. | 95% CI | OR | Sig. | 95% CI | |
| Degree of DIT use | ||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| High | 1.62 | * | 1.05 − 2.52 | 1.86 | * | 1.10 − 3.17 |
| No response | 1.05 | 0.68 − 1.63 | 1.54 | 0.90 − 2.62 | ||
| Destination-country social integration (MCA) | 0.78 | ** | 0.65 − 0.94 | 0.68 | *** | 0.55 − 0.84 |
| Discrimination | 1.81 | ** | 1.22 − 2.69 | 1.86 | ** | 1.16 − 3.07 |
| Woman | 1.74 | *** | 1.30 − 2.33 | 2.13 | *** | 1.48 − 3.07 |
| Age: 65 years or older | 0.82 | 0.59 − 1.14 | 0.78 | 0.50 − 1.22 | ||
| Tertiary education | 1.40 | * | 1.01 − 1.94 | 1.55 | * | 1.04 − 2.30 |
| Married or cohabiting | 1.30 | 0.91 − 1.86 | 1.26 | 0.80 − 1.99 | ||
| In paid work | 0.81 | 0.58 − 1.12 | 0.68 | 0.41 − 1.12 | ||
| High monthly household income: More than €2499 | 1.11 | 0.74 − 1.67 | 1.58 | * | 0.91 − 2.76 | |
| Financial hardship | 0.79 | 0.56 − 1.12 | 0.94 | 0.61 − 1.44 | ||
| Chronic illness | 2.84 | *** | 1.69 − 4.78 | 3.11 | *** | 1.69 − 5.72 |
| Accessed healthcare services in Finland during last 12 months | 0.87 | 0.54 − 1.39 | 0.66 | 0.38 − 1.15 | ||
| Visited origin country during last 12 months | 7.90 | *** | 4.10 − 15.22 | 5.54 | *** | 2.75 − 11.14 |
| Intercept | 0.01 | *** | 0.00 − 0.04 | |||
| 826 | ||||||
OR odds ratio; Sig. significance; CI confidence interval; Ref. reference category
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Estimates of logistic regression models with interactions terms on accessing THC
| Model A | Model B | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Sig. | Standard error | Coefficient | Sig. | Standard error | |
| Degree of DIT use | ||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| High | 0.899 | ** | (0.331) | 0.809 | * | (0.325) |
| Destination-country social integration (MCA) | − 0.826 | ** | (0.267) | − 0.615 | *** | (0.140) |
| Social integration in Finland × High use | 0.279 | (0.295) | ||||
| Discrimination | 0.491 | (0.341) | 0.401 | (0.580) | ||
| Discrimination × High use | 0.090 | (0.677) | ||||
| 553 | 553 | |||||
Estimates of control variables are not displayed, as they did not show a significant change from those in the full model without interactions terms
Sig. significance; Ref. reference category
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05