The patient journey of newly arrived asylum seekers and responsiveness of care: A qualitative study in Germany

Identifying gaps in healthcare: a qualitative study of Ukrainian refugee experiences in the German system, uncovering differences, information and support needs

BACKGROUND

The 5.8 million Ukrainian refugees arriving in European countries must navigate varying healthcare systems and different and often unknown languages in their respective host countries. To date, there has been little exploration of the experiences, perceived differences, information and support needs of these refugees regarding the use of healthcare in Germany.

METHODS

We conducted ten qualitative interviews with Ukrainian refugees living in Germany from February to May 2023, using Ukrainian, English and German language. The transcribed interviews were analysed using the qualitative content analysis method according to Kuckartz and Rädiker with the MAXQDA software.

RESULTS

In general, participants consistently had a positive experience of the German healthcare system, particularly regarding the quality of treatments and insurance. Differences have been reported in the structure of the healthcare systems. The Ukrainian healthcare system is divided into private and state sectors, with no mandatory insurance and frequent out-of-pocket payments. Pathways differ and tend to focus more on clinics and private doctors. General practitioners, often working in less well-equipped offices, have only recently gained prominence due to healthcare system reforms. Initiating contact with doctors is often easier, with much shorter waiting times compared to Germany. Interviewees often found the prescription requirements for many medications in Germany to be unusual. However, the mentioned differences in healthcare result in unmet information needs among the refugees, especially related to communication, navigating the healthcare system, health insurance, waiting times and medication access. These needs were often addressed through personal internet research and informal (social media) networks because of lacking official information provided during or after their arrival.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the positive experiences of Ukrainian refugees in the German healthcare system, differences in the systems and language barriers led to barriers using healthcare and information needs among refugees. The dissemination of information regarding characteristics of the German health care system is crucial for successful integration but is currently lacking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00030942, date of registration: 29.12.2022.

Inequalities in health system responsiveness among asylum seekers and refugees: A population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany

Global migration has sparked renewed interest in Universal Health Coverage in high-income countries. However, quality of care has received little attention. This study uses the concept of responsiveness to study quality of care for asylum seekers and refugees (ASR) in Germany and identify inequalities among this group. We report results from a population-based, cross-sectional health monitoring survey in Germany's third-largest federal state using random sampling methods. Established instruments were used to measure responsiveness, health status and socio-demographic factors. Data were weighted and adjusted logistic regression models applied to identify inequalities related to health status, structural and socio-demographic factors. N = 344 survey participants were included in the analysis (response rate 39.2%). Combined responsiveness was 77% (95%CI: 68%; 83%) but varied between domains. Responsiveness was poor for individuals with symptoms of anxiety (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.13,0.99), longstanding illness (OR:0.42, 95%CI:0.17,1.06) and diminished health-related quality of life (OR:0.24, 95%CI:0.06,0.95). Individuals from Southern Asia (OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.07,0.86) and young participants (OR:0.31, 95%CI:0.12,0.82) also reported less responsive care. Unique patterns of explanatory factors were identified within each responsiveness domain. We found important differences in responsiveness related to health, socio-demographic and structural factors, both in combined responsiveness and in individual domains. Inequalities related to health status factors are particularly concerning given the potential implications for equity of access. Future research should explore responsiveness for different sectors, include individuals who have not utilised healthcare and allow for the adjustment of differential expectations of care between population groups.