Assessing the efficacy and experience of in-person versus telephonic psychiatric evaluations for asylum seekers in the U.S

Impact of COVID-19 on Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors and Families: Perspectives from Clinical Experts and Providers

The number of unaccompanied immigrant minors (UIMs) and families from Central America seeking asylum in the U.S. continues to rise. This growth, combined with restrictive government policies, led to crowded and suboptimal conditions in Customs and Border Patrol and non-governmental organization facilities. COVID-19 further taxed facilities and exacerbated uncertainty surrounding length of detention, basic human rights, and family reunification. The current project features testimonies from the authors who work as clinical experts and providers in Texas - a top destination for Central American immigrants. In collaboration with a deputy director of a not-for-profit human rights organization, volunteer psychologists, and the director of a humanitarian respite center, we describe challenges faced by administrators and clinical staff in addressing the mental health needs of immigrant children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary themes identified were anti-immigrant policies that occurred concurrently with COVID-19; difficulty implementing COVID-19 protocols alongside scarcity of supplies and volunteers; increased mental health needs among UIMs and immigrant families; and challenges in UIM placement upon release from custody. Strategies for addressing clinical challenges in the near- and long-term and opportunities for improvement in care systems to immigrant youth, including correcting anti-immigrant policies, addressing ongoing COVID-19 protocols and challenges, meeting mental and physical health needs, facilitating release and reunification for unaccompanied immigrant minors, and maximizing youth resilience through trauma-informed interventions, are presented.

Access to Virtual Mental Healthcare and Support for Refugee and Immigrant Groups: A Scoping Review

Immigrant and refugee populations face multiple barriers to accessing mental health services. This scoping review applies the (Levesque et al. in Int J Equity Health 12:18, 2013) Patient-Centred Access to Healthcare model in exploring the potential of increased access through virtual mental healthcare services VMHS for these populations by examining the affordability, availability/accommodation, and appropriateness and acceptability of virtual mental health interventions and assessments. A search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, EMBASE, SOCINDEX and SCOPUS following (Arksey and O'Malley in Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) guidelines found 44 papers and 41 unique interventions/assessment tools. Accessibility depended on individual (e.g., literacy), program (e.g., computer required) and contextual/social factors (e.g., housing characteristics, internet bandwidth). Participation often required financial and technical support, raising important questions about the generalizability and sustainability of VMHS' accessibility for immigrant and refugee populations. Given limitations in current research (i.e., frequent exclusion of patients with severe mental health issues; limited examination of cultural dimensions; de facto exclusion of those without access to technology), further research appears warranted.

e-Health for Traumatized Refugees: A Scoping Review

Background: High prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is reported among refugees exposed to traumatic experiences, while escaping from their home country, entering a third country, and adjusting to a new society. Electronic health (e-health) treatments have been utilized to overcome challenges such as high costs, limited access to care, and a shortage of resources faced by traumatized refugees. Objective: The aim of this scoping review was to summarize the current science on e-health to screen and treat PTSD in traumatized refugees, examine its benefits and challenges, and suggest strategies for future research. Methods: We conducted a scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage scoping review framework. Results: Of the 2,782 articles identified, 8 studies were included for the final analysis. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, the synthesis of results was not feasible. However, the findings of individual studies were examined. The most commonly used technology modality was the smartphone (n = 5). One study revealed the possibility of telephonic screening of PTSD to be equally efficacious as in-person screening, and all interventions through smartphone and the internet reported high feasibility and acceptability. Conclusion: e-Health is suggested to be a novel and scalable platform to provide mental health care in settings with limited resources. Larger and highly robust studies in refugee populations with PTSD-targeted, theory-based approaches and diverse technological formats such as video conferencing and virtual reality are warranted.

Conducting remote medical asylum evaluations in the United States during COVID-19: Clinicians' perspectives on acceptability, challenges and opportunities

Background

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical evaluations for asylum are being performed predominantly remotely. We sought to describe these evaluations and identify barriers.

Methodology

This study utilized an online survey to assess clinician perspectives and experiences regarding remote asylum evaluations.

Results

Clinicians reported positive experiences regarding remote interpretation (85%, 51/60), history taking (82.4%, 61/74), rapport building (81.3%, 61/75), and conducting the psychiatric exam (65.7%, 44/67). Concerns were more frequently reported with performing remote physical examinations (83.3%, 15/18). Although the majority denied challenges with technology (62.5%, 45/72), internet (60.8%, 45/74) or clients having difficulty acquiring technology (58.6%, 41/70) or finding private spaces (54.2%, 39/72), these aspects did represent barriers.

Discussion

Remote evaluations were relatively easy to perform and acceptable to clinicians. This may facilitate easier access for asylum seekers beyond the pandemic.

Challenges for Students in the Creation, Growth, and Management of an Academic, Student-run Asylum Clinic

Medical school asylum clinics are complex organizations that blend medical and legal expertise with service to assist individuals seeking refuge from human rights violations. The balance of power shared by the students and faculty who lead these clinics varies widely across institutions, usually in an inverse reciprocal relationship. The Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights will observe its 10th anniversary in 2020 and is notable for espousing maximal student autonomy in the organization's governance with minimal faculty control or administration participation. This level of autonomy requires that, in addition to successfully running the organization, student leaders must adeptly manage logistical, administrative, and ethical challenges without compromising the trust and confidence of the medical college and larger university. This article describes a series of difficult decisions involving policy, conflict resolution, and resource management made expeditiously by the student leadership. Ethical dilemmas, operational challenges, and the difficulties imposed by an unexpected global catastrophe-the COVID-19 pandemic-are presented alongside detailed descriptions of how these issues were deliberated and resolved by the student leadership.

"Better than having no evaluation done": a pilot project to conduct remote asylum evaluations for clients in a migrant encampment in Mexico

BACKGROUND

Asylum evaluations are highly specialized medico-legal encounters to collect physical or mental health evidence for use in immigration proceedings. Although the field of asylum medicine is growing, access to these evaluations is still inadequate, particularly for those in United States immigration detention or other forms of custody, such as under the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols or "Remain in Mexico" policy. Given advances in telehealth in recent years and growing evidence of similar outcomes with in-person management, it seems prudent to examine whether remote modalities may also be effective for conducting mental health asylum evaluations in hard-to-reach populations.

METHODS

We analyzed the responses of 12 U.S. clinicians who conducted 25 cross-border remote mental health evaluations with clients in Mexico prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and completed a post-evaluation survey regarding their impressions and experiences of the remote encounter. Data were coded through a process of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The average evaluation time was 2.3 h, slightly shorter than might be expected from an in-person encounter. Five themes emerged from the coding process: rapport building, achieving overall goal, comparison of in-person vs. remote, technical issues, and coordination. Clinicians encountered a number of challenges including technical difficulties and a decreased ability to establish rapport. Nearly uniformly, however, clinicians noted that despite difficulties, they were able achieve the goals of the evaluation, including rapport building and diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Remote evaluations appear to achieve their intended goal and may be useful in expanding legal options for hard-to-reach asylum seekers.

Piloting forensic tele-mental health evaluations of asylum seekers

While the number of medical human rights programs has increased, there is substantial unmet need for forensic evaluations among asylum seekers throughout the United States. From September 2019 through May 2020, the Mount Sinai Human Rights Program has coordinated pro bono forensic mental health evaluations by telephone or video for individuals seeking protected immigration status who are unable to access in-person services. The national network clinicians conducted 32 forensic evaluations of individuals in eight U.S. states and Mexico seeking immigration relief. Remote forensic services have been a relevant solution for individuals in immigration detention, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.