You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Methodological quality assessment of studies included in the review (n = 37)

From: Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups in the use of primary medical care; a systematic review

Study population:  
Were the groups clearly defined? 8 studies unclear/no 29 studies yes
Can selection bias sufficiently be excluded? 1 11 studies unclear/no 26 studies yes
Did the immigrant groups and the majority population originate from the same source population? 2 2 studies unclear/no 35 studies yes
Measurement:  
Was the data collection adjusted for possible language problems or cultural differences3 24 studies unclear/no 13 studies yes
Was use of primary medical care determined independently of immigrant status?4 28 studies unclear/no 9 studies yes
Was immigrant status determined independently of primary medical care use?4 14 studies unclear/no 23 studies yes
Analysis:  
Were the results adjusted for potential confounders? 11 studies unclear/no 26 studies yes
  1. 1 Selection bias was only expected to be sufficiently excluded when the study population was based on a random selection from a national sample.
  2. 2 Immigrant groups and the majority population originated from the same source population when both samples where retrieved from the same basic population
  3. 3 Adjustment for possible language problems and cultural differences was accomplished when during the data collection for instance interpreters or translated questionnaires were used.
  4. 4 The use of primary medical care was determined independently from immigrant status (and the other way around) when it was impossible that a person's score on the use of care could be influenced by knowledge about a person's immigrant status. This was not the case when a physician treating the patient filled in both the health care use and a person's immigrant status