ArticleGlobal health action2016
Detainees, staff, and health care services in immigration detention centres: a descriptive comparison of detention systems in Sweden and in the Benelux countries.
Article in Global health action, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mental Health Consultations in Immigration Detention: What Can We Learn From Clinical Records?International journal of public health · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmigration detention has been shown to negatively affect the health and well-being of detainees. The aim of the study was to describe and compare policies and practices that could affect the health and well-being of immigrant detainees in the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) to those in Sweden.
designThis was a case study. Data were collected in two phases using a questionnaire developed particularly for this study. In the first phase, authorities in the Benelux countries responded to the questionnaire via email. During the second phase, a research team visited detention centres in the Benelux countries to observe and further explore, strengthening findings through triangulation. Data on Swedish detention centres were collected in previous studies.
resultsCompared to the Benelux countries, Sweden has limited health care provision available in the detention centres. Swedish detention centres did not have mental health care professionals working at the centres and had fewer restrictions within the centres with regard to access to mobile phone, internet, and various recreational activities. Compared to Sweden, the detention centres in the Benelux countries have more staff categories providing services to the detainees that are provided with relevant and timely on-the-job training. All the countries, except Belgium, provide subsistence allowances to detainees.
conclusionDespite the Common European Asylum System framework, differences exist among the four European Union member states in providing services to immigrant detainees. This study highlights these differences, thereby providing a window on how these diverse approaches may serve as a learning tool for improving services offered to immigrant detainees. In Sweden, the health care available to detainees and training and recruitment of staff should be improved, while the Benelux countries should strive to reduce restrictions within detention centres.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.