ArticleBMC health services research2025
Utilisation of specialist mental health and addiction services in New Zealand: a comparative analysis of refugees with the general population.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study describes and compares the utilisation rates of specialist mental health and addiction (MH) services between different refugee groups and the New Zealand (NZ) resident population.
methodsUsing linked data in Statistics NZ's Integrated Data Infrastructure, we identified 23,709 individuals with an asylum seeker or refugee visa who stayed in NZ for at least 6 months. Logistic regression models compared the use of MH services between different refugee groups (quota refugees, convention refugees, family reunification, and asylum seekers). We conducted cox regression hazard models to investigate the time to the first service use between refugee groups and a sample of NZ resident population, including NZ-born and overseas-born individuals.
resultsAdjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, neighbourhood deprivation, and time spent in NZ, we found that asylum seekers, family, and convention refugees were less likely to utilise MH services than quota refugees. The following groups had higher odds of utilising MH services: females compared with males (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.35, 1.59) and those living in more deprived neighbourhoods compared with less deprived areas (OR = 1.27; 95%CI = 1.18, 1.38). Quota refuges were more likely to use MH services compared to the NZ-born group (HR = 1.94, 95%CI = 1.86, 2.03). Convention, family and asylum seekers were less likely to utilise MH services than the NZ-born population (HR = 0.82; [95% CI = 0.76, 0.89], HR = 0.54; [95% CI = 0.46, 0.64], and HR = 0.71, [95%=0.59, 0.86], respectively). We found that quota refugees' primary source of MH service use was NGOs whereas for other refugee sub-groups, it has been District Health Boards.
conclusionThe use of MH services differed between refugee groups. Quota refugees were more likely to utilise services, mainly from NGOs, with women and those who lived in the most deprived areas more likely to use MH services. These results have policy implications, such as improving early service accessibility for all refugee sub-groups.
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.