Author:
Muggli Zélia,Mertens Thierry E.,Amado Regina,Vaz Dora,Loureiro Helena,Martins Maria Rosário O.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
International migrant families may face various barriers in the access and use of health services. Evidence on immigrant children’s health care or prevention facilities’ utilisation patterns is scarce in Portugal. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to compare health services use between immigrant and non-immigrant children in the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon in 2019–2020 with the aim of informing public policies towards equitable access to, and use of health services.
Methods
The CRIAS (Health Trajectories of Immigrant Children) prospective cohort study enrolled 420 children (51.6% immigrant) born in 2015 and attending primary health care (PHC) services in 2019. We compared primary health care facilities and hospital paediatric emergency department (ED) utilisation patterns in the public National Health Service, together with reported private practitioners use, between immigrant and non-immigrant children in 2019 and 2020. The Pearson chi-squared test, Fisher-Freeman-Halton Exact test, two-proportion z-test and Mann‒Whitney U test were used to examine the differences between the two groups.
Results
In 2019, no significant differences in PHC consultations attendance between the two groups were observed. However, first-generation immigrant children (children residing in Portugal born in a non-European Union country) accessed fewer routine health assessments compared to non-immigrant children (63.4% vs. 79.2%). When children were acutely ill, 136 parents, of whom 55.9% were parents of non-immigrant children, reported not attending PHC as the first point of contact. Among those, nearly four times more non-immigrant children sought healthcare in the private sector than immigrant children (p < 0.001). Throughout 2019, immigrant children used ED more often than non-immigrant children (53.5% vs. 40.4%, p = 0.010), as their parents reported difficulties in accessing PHC. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer immigrant children accessed PHC compared to non-immigrant children (70% vs. 80%, p = 0.018). Both non-immigrant and immigrant children reduced ED use by 2.5 times, with a higher decrease among immigrant children (46% vs. 34%). In both 2019 and 2020, over 80% of immigrant and non-immigrant children used ED for conditions classified as having low clinical priority.
Conclusion
Beyond identifying health care use inequalities between immigrant and non-immigrant children, the study points to urgent needs for public policy and economic investments to strengthen PHC for all children rather than for some.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health