RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Migrants’ primary care utilisation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: An interrupted time series
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.03.14.22272283
DO 10.1101/2022.03.14.22272283
A1 Zhang, Claire X.
A1 Boukari, Yamina
A1 Pathak, Neha
A1 Mathur, Rohini
A1 Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal
A1 Patel, Parth
A1 Campos-Matos, Ines
A1 Lewer, Dan
A1 Nguyen, Vincent
A1 Hugenholtz, Greg
A1 Burns, Rachel
A1 Mulick, Amy
A1 Henderson, Alasdair
A1 Aldridge, Robert W.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/14/2022.03.14.22272283.abstract
AB Background How international migrants access and use primary care in England is poorly understood. We aimed to compare primary care consultation rates between international migrants and non-migrants in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2015– 2020).Methods Using linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and the Office for National Statistics, we identified migrants using country-of-birth, visa-status or other codes indicating international migration. We ran a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) using negative binomial regression to compare rates before and during the pandemic.Findings In 262,644 individuals, pre-pandemic consultation rates per person-year were 4.35 (4.34-4.36) for migrants and 4.6 (4.59-4.6) for non-migrants (RR:0.94 [0.92-0.96]). Between 29 March and 26 December 2020, rates reduced to 3.54 (3.52-3.57) for migrants and 4.2 (4.17-4.23) for non-migrants (RR:0.84 [0.8–0.88]). Overall, this represents an 11% widening of the pre-pandemic difference in consultation rates between migrants and non-migrants during the first year of the pandemic (RR:0.89, 95%CI:0.84–0.94). This widening was greater for children, individuals whose first language was not English, and individuals of White British, White non-British and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities.Interpretation Migrants were less likely to use primary care before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic exacerbated this difference. As GP practices retain remote and hybrid models of service delivery, they must improve services and ensure they are accessible and responsive to migrants’ healthcare needs.Funding This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028375/1) and Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).Competing Interest StatementNP and RWA receive funding from the Wellcome Trust. RWA has undertaken paid research consulting work on migration and health for Doctors of World and International Labor Organization in the last five years. CZ, YB and IC-M are employed by the Department of Health and Social Care and contribute to the development of national guidance and policy in migration health. CZ is also a Trustee for the charity Art Refuge. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Wellcome Trust, UCL, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Health and Social Care, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, University of Oxford, University of Glasgow or the UK Health Security Agency.Clinical Protocols https://github.com/UCL-Public-Health-Data-Science/CPRD-GOLD-migrant-primary-care-consultations Funding StatementThis study was funded by the MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 and Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RWA [206602]. The sponsors of the study had no role in conducting this analysis or drafting this manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (protocol 19_062R, approval on 29 April 2019) and it was carried out as part of the CALIBER programme under Section 251 (NHS Social Care Act 2006), which has NHS research ethics approval (09/H0810/16).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis study used pseudonymised patient-level data from CPRD GOLD, which we are unable to publish to protect patient confidentiality. Other researchers can apply to use patient-level data in CPRD GOLD data through CPRD's Research Data Governance Process (RDG; https://www.cprd.com/Data-access). All code used to generate these analyses is publicly available. All code for data cleaning and analysis is freely available. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6345287