ArticlePLoS medicine2024
Medical imaging utilization in migrants compared with nonmigrants in a universal healthcare system: A population-based matched cohort study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical imaging is an integral part of healthcare. Globalization has resulted in increased mobilization of migrants to new host nations. The association between migration status and utilization of medical imaging is unknown. METHODS AND
findingsA retrospective population-based matched cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada from April 1, 1995 to December 31, 2016. A total of 1,848,222 migrants were matched 1:1 to nonmigrants in the year of migration on age, sex, and geography. Utilization of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiography, and ultrasonography was determined. Rate differences per 1,000 person-years comparing migrants to nonmigrants were calculated. Relative rates were calculated using a recurrent event framework, adjusting for age, sex, and time-varying socioeconomic status, comorbidity score, and access to a primary care provider. Estimates were stratified by migration age: children and adolescents (≤19 years), young adults (20 to 39), adults (40 to 59), and older adults (≥60). Utilization rates of CT, MRI, and radiography were lower for migrants across all age groups compared with Ontario nonmigrants. Increasing age at migration was associated with larger differences in utilization rates. Older adult migrants had the largest gap in imaging utilization. The longer the time since migration, the larger the gap in medical imaging use. In multivariable analysis, the relative rate of imaging was approximately 20% to 30% lower for migrants: ranging from 0.77 to 0.88 for CT and 0.72 to 0.80 for MRI imaging across age groups. Radiography relative rates ranged from 0.84 to 0.90. All migrant age groups, except older adults, had higher rates of ultrasonography. The indication for imaging was not captured, thus it was not possible to determine if the imaging was necessary.
conclusionsMigrants utilized less CT, MRI, and radiography but more ultrasonography. Older adult migrants used the least amount of imaging compared with nonmigrants. Future research should evaluate whether lower utilization is due to barriers in healthcare access or health-seeking behaviors within a universal healthcare system.
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.