ArticlePLOS global public health2026
A service evaluation of clinicians' Signposting of asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) attending an emergency department in South-West England.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent changes to health entitlements for asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) in the UK may exacerbate existing barriers of access to healthcare for ASR patients and lead to greater numbers seeking emergency care. In the city in South-West England where this Formative Service Evaluation took place, there has been an increase in the population of ASR patients living in temporary accommodation and their usage of local health services is expected to increase. This Formative Service Evaluation evaluated clinicians' assessment and signposting of ASRs attending an Emergency Department in South-west England, by assessing three identified components of the service. It informed interventions that were then developed to improve the service. A mixed-methods survey was used to evaluate the service, whereby clinicians manage and signpost care for ASRs attending the Emergency Department. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 50 participants, including 30 medical and 20 nursing staff. Quantitative survey data was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis and qualitative data was analysed using conventional content analysis. This evaluation points at some inconsistencies of knowledge of ASRs health entitlements within the service; suboptimal practice of understanding and acting on barriers to ASRs' access to emergency service, and limited knowledge of local services available for ASR patients. Understanding the factors and circumstances affecting challenges to service provision to ASRs is important in developing strategies to improve this service.
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.