Knowledge of legal rights as a factor of refugee and asylum seekers' health status: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To examine health behaviours of refugees and asylum seekers, in relation to their knowledge of public benefits and legal rights.

DESIGN

Qualitative study, utilising an open-ended, semi-structured interview guide to ensure information-rich data collection. Thematic content was analysed using qualitative research software.

SETTING

Participants were drawn from the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights (WCCHR) in New York City, a single-center, human rights clinic with a globally representative patient population. All interviews were conducted at the Weill Cornell Medicine Clinical and Translational Science Center, a multidisciplinary space within an urban academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four refugees and asylum seekers currently living in the greater New York City area. Eligible participants were 18 years of age or older and had previously sought services from the WCCHR. The recruitment rate was 55%.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Themes and concepts in participants' health, knowledge, perceptions of and experiences with accessing healthcare and public benefits programmes.

RESULTS

Twenty-four participants represented 18 countries of origin and 11 primary languages. Several impediments to accessing healthcare and public benefits were identified, including pragmatic barriers (such as prohibitive costs or lack of insurance), knowledge gaps and mistrust of healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low health engagement by refugees and asylum seekers, as a result of multiple, complex factors impeding the ability of refugee and asylum seekers to access healthcare and other public benefits for which they are eligible-with resultant detrimental health effects. However, there is an opportunity to utilise novel approaches, such as digital technologies, to communicate relevant information regarding legal rights and public benefits to advance the health of vulnerable individuals such as refugees and asylum seekers.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505).

SETTING

46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery.

INTERVENTION

Spinal or general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care.

RESULTS

A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups.

LIMITATION

Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSION

Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.