Search

Background: Access to health services for asylum seekers is legally restricted in Germany. The law is subject to interpretation, therefore the chance of receiving care is not equally distributed among asylum seekers. What services are provided to whom is ultimately decided by health professionals and government employees. The respective prioritization processes and criteria are not transparent. We sought to understand how legal restrictions are translated into daily practices and how this affects the health system. We aimed to outline the complex process of cost coverage for health services for asylum seekers and provide insights into common decision-making criteria. Methods: We conducted an ethnographic exploration of routines in two outpatient clinics in two federal states over the course of three months, doing participant and non-participant observation. Additionally, we interviewed 21 professionals of health care and government organizations, and documented 110 applications for cost coverage of medical services and their outcome. In addition to qualitative data analysis and documentation, we apply a system-theoretical perspective to our findings. Results: To perform legal restrictions a cross-sectoral prioritization process of medical services has been implemented, involving health care and government institutions. This changes professional practices, responsibilities and (power) relations. Involved actors find themselves at the intersection of several, oftentimes conflicting priorities, since "doing it right" might be seen differently from a legal, medical, economic, or political perspective. The system-theoretical analysis reveals that while actors have to bring different rationales into workable arrangements this part of the medical system transforms, giving rise to a sub-system that incorporates migration political rationales. Conclusions: Health care restrictions for asylum seekers are implemented through an organizational linking of care provision and government administration, resulting in a bureaucratization of practice. Power structures at this intersection of health and migration policy, that are uncommon in other parts of the health system are thereby normalized. Outpatient clinics provide low-threshold access to health services, but paradoxically they may unintentionally stabilize health inequities, if prioritization criteria and power dynamics are not made transparent. Health professionals should openly reflect on conflicting rationales. Training, research and professional associations need to empower them to stay true to professional ethical principles and international conventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, immunization programmes struggled to reach all population groups equally. While migrant groups face multiple barriers to health systems, including vaccination, little is known about their vaccine uptake. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey on adults with and without migration history in Germany to investigate barriers and drivers to COVID-19 vaccination (11 April 2021 to 18 December 2021). Interviews were conducted in six languages. We used logistic regression models and a mediation model to analyze the association between migration history and vaccine uptake. Furthermore, we determined the effect of psychological determinants (5C model) on vaccine uptake. Results The survey comprised 2039 individuals, including 1015 with migration history. Of these, 448 were interviews conducted in languages other than German. Individuals with migration history had a significantly lower vaccine uptake but, while still unvaccinated, had a higher intention to get vaccinated (P  = 0.015) compared with those without migration history. The association between migration history and vaccine uptake was no longer significant when other factors were included in the regression model (odds ratio = 0.9; 95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.47). Socio-economic index, language skills and discrimination experience fully mediated this association. Among the psychological determinants, 'higher confidence' and 'higher collective responsibility' increased the chance of individuals with migration history to be vaccinated. Conclusion Migration history alone cannot explain vaccine uptake; socio-economic index, language skills and discrimination experiences need to be considered. To achieve vaccine equity, future public health policy should aim to reduce relevant barriers through tailored interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most common form of interpersonal violence and a major public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed to an increase in IPV experiences. To evaluate changes in IPV prevalence during the pandemic, it is important to consider studies' methodological characteristics such as the assessment tools used, samples addressed, or administration modes (e.g., face-to-face, telephone or online interviews), since they may influence disclosure and were likely affected by pandemic-imposed mobility restrictions. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical studies addressing IPV against women, men, or both, during the COVID-19 period. We searched six electronic databases until December 2021, including articles in English, German, Spanish, French or Portuguese languages. We extracted and synthesised characteristics of studies related to sampling (clinical, community, convenience), type assessment tool (standardised questionnaire, specifically created questions), method of administration (online, telephone, face-to-face), and estimates of different forms of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological). IPV estimates were pooled stratified by study characteristics using random-effects models. Results: Of 3581 publications, we included 103 studies. Fifty-five studies used a standardized instrument (or some adaptations) to assess IPV, with the World Health Organisation Questionnaire and the Revised Conflicts Tactics Scales being the most frequent. For 34 studies, the authors created specific questions to assess IPV. Sixty-one studies were conducted online, 16 contacted participants face-to-face and 11 by telephone. The pooled prevalence estimate for any type of violence against women (VAW) was 21% (95% Confidence Interval, 95%CI = 18%-23%). The pooled estimate observed for studies assessing VAW using the telephone was 19% (95%CI = 10%-28%). For online studies it was 16% (95%CI = 13%-19%), and for face-to-face studies, it was 38% (95%CI = 28%-49%). According to the type of sample, a pooled estimate of 17% (95%CI = 9%-25%) was observed for studies on VAW using a clinical sample. This value was 21% (95%CI = 18%-24%) and 22% (95%CI = 16%-28%) for studies assessing VAW using a convenience sample and a general population or community sample, respectively. According to the type of instrument, studies on VAW using a standardized tool revealed a pooled estimate of 21% (95%CI = 18%-25%), and an estimate of 17% (95%CI = 13%-21%) was found for studies using specifically created questions. Conclusions: During the pandemic, IPV prevalence studies showed great methodological variation. Most studies were conducted online, reflecting adaptation to pandemic measures implemented worldwide. Prevalence estimates were higher in face-to-face studies and in studies using a standardized tool. However, estimates of the different forms of IPV during the pandemic do not suggest a marked change in prevalence compared to pre-pandemic global prevalence estimates, suggesting that one in five women experienced IPV during this period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been the cornerstone of COVID-19 pandemic control, but evidence on their effectiveness varies according to the methods and approaches taken to empirical analysis. We analysed the impact of NPIs on incident SARS-CoV-2 across 32 European countries (March-December 2020) using two NPI trackers: the Corona Virus Pandemic Policy Monitor - COV-PPM, and the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker - OxCGRT., Methods: NPIs were summarized through principal component analysis into three sets, stratified by two waves (C1-C3, weeks 5-25, and C4-C6, weeks 35-52). Longitudinal, multi-level mixed-effects negative binomial regression models were fitted to estimate incidence rate ratios for cases and deaths considering different time-lags and reverse causation (i.e. changing incidence causing NPIs), stratified by waves and geographical regions (Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern, Others)., Results: During the first wave, restrictions on movement/mobility, public transport, public events, and public spaces (C1) and healthcare system improvements, border closures and restrictions to public institutions (C2) were associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 incidence after 28 and 35-days. Mask policies (C3) were associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 incidence (except after 35-days). During wave 1, C1 and C2 were associated with a decrease in deaths after 49-days and C3 after 21, 28 and 35-days. During wave 2, restrictions on movement/mobility, public transport and healthcare system improvements (C5) were also associated with a decrease in SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths across all countries., Conclusion: In the absence of pre-existing immunity, vaccines or treatment options, our results suggest that the observed implementation of different categories of NPIs, showed varied associations with SARS-CoV-2 incidence and deaths across regions, and varied associations across waves. These relationships were consistent across components of NPIs derived from two policy trackers (CoV-PPM and OxCGRT)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests that are relevant to the content of this Commentary. Some of the ideas presented here were developed as part of the joint work of NG, IP, BG, ILDA and further partners within the framework of the EU funded project DignityFIRM (HORIZON-CL2-2022-TRANSFORMATIONS-01, project no. 101094652).

Newly arriving asylum seekers in Germany mostly live in large reception centres, depending on professionals in most aspects of their daily lives. The legal basis for the provision of goods and services allows for discretionary decisions. Given the potential impact of social categorisation on professionals' decisions, and ultimately access to health and social services, we explore the categories used by professionals. We ask of what nature these categorisations are, and weather they align with the public discourse on forced migration. Within an ethnographic study in outpatient clinics of two refugee accommodation centres in Germany, we conducted a modified free-listing with 40 professionals (physicians, nurses, security-personnel, social workers, translators) to explore their categorisation of asylum seekers. Data were qualitatively analysed, and categories were quantitatively mapped using Excel and the Macro "Flame" to show frequencies, ranks, and salience. The four most relevant social categorisations of asylum seekers referred to "demanding and expectant," "polite and friendly" behaviour, "economic refugees," and "integration efforts". In general, sociodemographic variables like gender, age, family status, including countries and regions of origin, were the most significant basis for categorisations (31%), those were often presented combined with other categories. Observations of behaviour and attitudes also influenced categorisations (24%). Professional considerations, e.g., on health, education, adaption or status ranked third (20%). Social categorisation was influenced by public discourses, with evaluations of flight motives, prospects of staying in Germany, and integration potential being thematised in 12% of the categorisations. Professionals therefore might be in danger of being instrumentalised for internal border work. Identifying social categories is important since they structure perception, along their lines deservingness is negotiated, so they potentially influence interaction and decision-making, can trigger empathy and support as well as rejection and discrimination. Larger studies should investigate this further. Free-listing provides a suitable tool for such investigations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Ziegler, Bozorgmehr. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The utilisation of outpatient dental services is an important indicator for monitoring healthcare provision in Germany. In the general population, the 12-month prevalence of dental service utilization is 82.2 %. For refugees, this indicator has hardly been measured, although studies suggest an objectively high need for dental care., Methodology: As part of the population-based cross-sectional RESPOND study (2018), self-reported health and healthcare, including the use of dental services, was assessed in three representative, random samples of refugees residing in reception and shared accommodation centres in Baden-Württemberg and Berlin., Results: The indicator was available for 68.8 % (594) of the 863 surveyed refugees. Overall, 38.2 % of the respondents stated that they had utilised dental services in the previous 12 months, whereas 41.4 % had never used any dental care in Germany., Conclusions: The utilisation of dental services among refugees is very low compared to the level of utilisation in the general population. It reflects a discrepancy between access and needs., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© Robert Koch Institute. All rights reserved unless explicitly granted.)