ArticleJournal of forensic and legal medicine2021
Conducting remote medical asylum evaluations in the United States during COVID-19: Clinicians' perspectives on acceptability, challenges and opportunities.
Article in Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An investigation into telemedicine utilization for refugee mental health: a systematic review.Globalization and health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical evaluations for asylum are being performed predominantly remotely. We sought to describe these evaluations and identify barriers. METHODOLOGY: This study utilized an online survey to assess clinician perspectives and experiences regarding remote asylum evaluations.
resultsClinicians reported positive experiences regarding remote interpretation (85%, 51/60), history taking (82.4%, 61/74), rapport building (81.3%, 61/75), and conducting the psychiatric exam (65.7%, 44/67). Concerns were more frequently reported with performing remote physical examinations (83.3%, 15/18). Although the majority denied challenges with technology (62.5%, 45/72), internet (60.8%, 45/74) or clients having difficulty acquiring technology (58.6%, 41/70) or finding private spaces (54.2%, 39/72), these aspects did represent barriers. DISCUSSION: Remote evaluations were relatively easy to perform and acceptable to clinicians. This may facilitate easier access for asylum seekers beyond the pandemic.
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.