Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32231391›Full record

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.

Clelia Pezzi, Deborah Lee, Gayathri S Kumar, Breanna Kawasaki, Lori Kennedy, Jenny Aguirre, Melissa Titus, Rebecca Ford, Blain Mamo, Kailey Urban and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Clelia PezziCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Immigrant, Refugee, and Migrant Health Branch, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3700-9741
Deborah LeeCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Immigrant, Refugee, and Migrant Health Branch, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Gayathri S KumarCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Immigrant, Refugee, and Migrant Health Branch, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2791-9960
Breanna KawasakiColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Disease Control and Environmental Epidemiology Division, Refugee Health Program, Denver, Colorado, United States of America.
Lori KennedyColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Disease Control and Environmental Epidemiology Division, Refugee Health Program, Denver, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5583-1264
Jenny AguirreIllinois Department of Public Health, Refugee Health Program, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1621-5826
Melissa TitusMarion County Public Health Department, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0906-0248
Rebecca FordUniversity of Louisville Division of Infectious Diseases, Louisville, Kentucky, United States of America.
Blain MamoMinnesota Department of Health, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9222-5957
Kailey UrbanMinnesota Department of Health, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
Stephen HughesBureau of Tuberculosis Control, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3592-6773
Colleen PaytonDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1398-6211
Kevin ScottDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jessica MontourTexas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Emily S JentesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Immigrant, Refugee, and Migrant Health Branch, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USColorado Department of Public Health and Environment · USMinnesota Department of Health · USThomas Jefferson University · USFamily and Social Services Administration · USIllinois Department of Public Health · USNew York State Department of Health · USTexas Department of State Health Services · USUniversity of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesEmigrants and ImmigrantsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRefugees

Identifiers

PMID32231391
PMCPMC7108694
OpenAlexW3013039438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.