ArticlePLoS medicine2020
Health screenings administered during the domestic medical examination of refugees and other eligible immigrants in nine US states, 2014-2016: A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving the detection of infectious diseases in at-risk migrants with an innovative integrated multi-infection screening digital decision support tool (IS-MiHealth) in primary care: a pilot cluster-randomized-controlled trial.Journal of travel medicine · 2022Trial
- Article
- Health Catch-UP!: a realist evaluation of an innovative multi-disease screening and vaccination tool in UK primary care for at-risk migrant patients.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Hepatitis C Screening and Antibody Prevalence Among Newly Arrived Refugees to the United States, 2010-2017.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2023Article
- Addressing Mental Health Concerns in Refugees and Displaced Populations: Is Enough Being Done?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Health of Asylees Compared to Refugees in the United States Using Domestic Medical Examination Data, 2014-2016: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Hepatitis B Evaluation and Linkage to Care for Newly Arrived Refugees: A Multisite Quality Improvement Initiative.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2021Article
- Increasing Recommended Care for Immigrant Children in an Ambulatory Care Network.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Mental Health Screening Differences in Non-English Speaking Patients: Results From a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefugees and other select visa holders are recommended to receive a domestic medical examination within 90 days after arrival to the United States. Limited data have been published on the coverage of screenings offered during this examination across multiple resettlement states, preventing evaluation of this voluntary program's potential impact on postarrival refugee health. This analysis sought to calculate and compare screening proportions among refugees and other eligible populations to assess the domestic medical examination's impact on screening coverage resulting from this examination. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis to summarize and compare domestic medical examination data from January 2014 to December 2016 from persons receiving a domestic medical examination in seven states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Kentucky, Illinois, and Texas); one county (Marion County, Indiana); and one academic medical center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We analyzed screening coverage by sex, age, nationality, and country of last residence of persons and compared the proportions of persons receiving recommended screenings by those characteristics. We received data on disease screenings for 105,541 individuals who received a domestic medical examination; 47% were female and 51.5% were between the ages of 18 and 44. The proportions of people undergoing screening tests for infectious diseases were high, including for tuberculosis (91.6% screened), hepatitis B (95.8% screened), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; 80.3% screened). Screening rates for other health conditions were lower, including mental health (36.8% screened). The main limitation of our analysis was reliance on data that were collected primarily for programmatic rather than surveillance purposes.
conclusionsIn this analysis, we observed high rates of screening coverage for tuberculosis, hepatitis B, and HIV during the domestic medical examination and lower screening coverage for mental health. This analysis provided evidence that the domestic medical examination is an opportunity to ensure newly arrived refugees and other eligible populations receive recommended health screenings and are connected to the US healthcare system. We also identified knowledge gaps on how screenings are conducted for some conditions, notably mental health, identifying directions for future research.
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.