Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32493256›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2020

Differences in realized access to healthcare among newly arrived refugees in Germany: results from a natural quasi-experiment.

Judith Wenner, Kayvan Bozorgmehr, Stella Duwendag, Kristin Rolke, Oliver Razum

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Health Care for Refugees in Europe: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors.

Judith WennerDepartment of Epidemiology & International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany. judith.wenner@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6659-2537
Kayvan BozorgmehrDepartment of Population Medicine and Health Services Research, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany.
Stella DuwendagDepartment of Epidemiology & International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany.
Kristin RolkeDepartment of Epidemiology & International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany.
Oliver RazumDepartment of Epidemiology & International Public Health, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

Ministry of Culture and Research of the Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 1704i010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGermany has a statutory health insurance (SHI) that covers nearly the entire population and most of the health services provided. Newly arrived refugees whose asylum claim is still being processed are initially excluded from the SHI. Instead, their entitlements are restricted and parallel access models have been implemented. We assessed differences in realized access of healthcare services between these access models.

methodsIn Germany's largest federal state, North Rhine-Westphalia, two different access models have been implemented in the 396 municipalities: the healthcare voucher (HcV) model and the electronic health card (eHC) model. As refugees are quasi-randomly assigned to municipalities, we were able to realize a natural quasi-experiment including all newly assigned refugees from six municipalities (three for each model) in 2016 and 2017. Using claims data, we compared the standardized incidence rates (SIR) of specialist services use, emergency services use, and hospitalization due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) between both models. We indirectly standardized utilization patterns first for age and then for the sex.

resultsSIRs of emergency use were higher in municipalities with HcV (ranging from 1.41 to 2.63) compared to emergency rates in municipalities with eHC (ranging from 1.40 to 1.71) and differed significantly from the expected rates derived from official health reporting. SIRs of emergency and specialist use in municipalities with eHC converged with the expected rates over time. There were no significant differences in standardized hospitalization rates for ACSC.

conclusionThe results suggest that the eHC model is slightly better able to provide refugees with SHI-like access to specialist services and goes along with lower utilization of emergency services compared to the HcV model. No difference between the models was found for hospitalizations due to ACSC. Results might be slightly biased due to incompletely documented service use and due to (self-) selection on the level of municipalities with municipalities interested in facilitating access showing more interest in joining the project.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAmbulatory CareCitiesEmergency Medical ServicesFacilities and Services UtilizationFemaleGermanyHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAccess to healthcareClaims dataNatural quasi-experimental designRefugees

Identifiers

PMID32493256
PMCPMC7269000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.