Refugee and Migrant Health Literacy Interventions in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Health literacy is a key determinant of health in refugee and migrant populations living in in high-income countries (HICs). We conducted a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to characterize the scope, methodology, and outcomes of research on interventions aimed at improving health literacy among these vulnerable populations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases to identify RCTs of health literacy intervenions in our target population published between 1997 and 2018. The search yielded 23 RCTs (n = 5625 participants). Study demographics, health literacy topics, interventions, and outcome measures were heterogeneous but demonstrated overall positive results. Only two studies used a common health literacy measure. Few RCTs have been conducted to investigate interventions for improving the health literacy of refugees and migrants in HICs. The heterogeniety of health literacy outcome measures used impeded a robust comparison of intervention efficacy.

An analysis of emergency care delays experienced by traumatic brain injury patients presenting to a regional referral hospital in a low-income country.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), trauma patients have a higher risk of experiencing delays to care due to limited hospital resources and difficulties in reaching a health facility. Reducing delays to care is an effective method for improving trauma outcomes. However, few studies have investigated the variety of care delays experienced by trauma patients in LMICs. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of pre- and in-hospital delays to care, and their association with poor outcomes among trauma patients in a low-income setting. METHODS: We used a prospective traumatic brain injury (TBI) registry from Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center in Moshi, Tanzania to model nine unique delays to care. Multiple regression was used to identify delays significantly associated with poor in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Our analysis included 3209 TBI patients. The most common delay from injury occurrence to hospital arrival was 1.1 to 4.0 hours (31.9%). Most patients were evaluated by a physician within 15.0 minutes of arrival (69.2%). Nearly all severely injured patients needed and did not receive a brain computed tomography scan (95.0%). A majority of severely injured patients needed and did not receive oxygen (80.8%). Predictors of a poor outcome included delays to lab tests, fluids, oxygen, and non-TBI surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Time to care data is informative, easy to collect, and available in any setting. Our time to care data revealed significant constraints to non-personnel related hospital resources. Severely injured patients with the greatest need for care lacked access to medical imaging, oxygen, and surgery. Insights from our study and future studies will help optimize resource allocation in low-income hospitals thereby reducing delays to care and improving trauma outcomes in LMICs.

Minority stress, social integration, and the mental health needs of LGBTQ asylum seekers in North America.

OBJECTIVE: Drawing on theoretical accounts of LGBTQ minority stress and models of social integration and immigrant health, the present study examines sexual and gender minority status - heretofore overlooked in crossnational frameworks of immigrant health - as an important determinant of asylum seeker mental health. With the goal of spurring intervention development among this population, this study also aims to characterize LGBTQ asylum seekers' interest in interventions aimed at alleviating minority stress, barriers to social integration, and associated mental distress. METHOD: Respondents (n = 308) completed an online survey which included the Refugee Health Screener (RHS-15), and a battery of measures of minority stressors and barriers to social integration. RESULTS: Most respondents (80.20%) screened positive for mental distress. Consistent with minority stress theory, loneliness (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.16) and LGBTQ identity disclosure (OR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.85, 6.50) were strongly associated with screening positive for mental distress. Consistent with theories of immigrant social integration, those who had been granted asylum (OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.25, 0.53) or had higher English language proficiency (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.21, 0.60) were less likely to screen positive. In an exploratory analysis, the association between transgender identity and mental distress approached significance (OR = 3.60, 95% CI = 1.00, 7.2). As preliminary justification for applying these findings to practice, most of those who screened positive for distress were interested in receiving mental health counseling (70.45%). Most participants wanted more LGBTQ friends (83.1%), wanted to mentor an LGBTQ newcomer (83.8%), and were interested in joining an LGBTQ community center (68.2%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that LGBTQ asylum seekers are highly likely to experience mental distress that is influenced by unique social factors, including barriers to social integration, and are motivated to participate in interventions aimed at addressing their mental health needs.

No Time for Silence: An Urgent Need for Political Activism Among the Medical Community.

Despite being a major stakeholder in the U.S. health care system, the medical community has remained relatively mute in the debate over the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). If the ACA were repealed, tens of millions of Americans would be in danger of losing their insurance, resulting in a significant increase in mortality. Because misinformation about the ACA is rampant, it is imperative that health care providers explain to the public what exactly the ACA is and how repeal will affect patients. Traditionally, many in the medical community have abstained from political advocacy for multiple reasons, including compromising the doctor-patient relationship, financial incentives, lack of experience with activism due to an absence of training in that area, and fear of political retaliation. Encouragingly, there are indications that the medical community is beginning to become more vocal. Medical students are one example, having formed a grassroots response to repeal. However, students need more guidance and support from experienced mentors to most effectively serve as patient advocates. This is no time for silence: On this life-or-death issue, the medical community cannot afford to remain mute.