“Sometimes it can be like an icebreaker”: A mixed method evaluation of the implementation of the Refugee Health Screener-13 (RHS-13)

IF 3.9 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Migration and Health Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jmh.2024.100243
{"title":"“Sometimes it can be like an icebreaker”: A mixed method evaluation of the implementation of the Refugee Health Screener-13 (RHS-13)","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jmh.2024.100243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Forced migrants are at risk of developing mental illness, yet challenges remain with underutilization of mental healthcare among this population. This study examined the implementation of the Refugee Health Screener-13 (RHS-13) in the health assessment for forced migrants in eight primary health care centres in Stockholm Region, Sweden.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A mixed-methods convergent parallel design was used, combining nurses self-reported quantitative data on the levels and reasons for RHS-13 use in the health assessment with qualitative interview data on the barriers and facilitators for RHS-13 use. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a coding framework for the qualitative analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Levels of RHS-13 use varied between primary health care centres, resulting in two groups: three centres with high-level (65–92%) and five centres with low-level (0–36%) implementation. Factors related to the tool itself, as well as the inner and outer context, influenced the use of RHS-13. Language barriers, insufficient time, and lack of trust in the validity and utility of RHS-13 were the main barriers, while its availability in many languages and that it was perceived as an important complement to the health assessment were the main facilitators.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>RHS-13 contributes to the standardization of assessing mental health in the health assessment. Identifying context-based implementation strategies and addressing language and time issues as well as nurses trust in the tool's utility are recommended to enhance the use of RHS-13.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34448,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Migration and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623524000321/pdfft?md5=0229f441ddf971c562a651826f4dd247&pid=1-s2.0-S2666623524000321-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Migration and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623524000321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Forced migrants are at risk of developing mental illness, yet challenges remain with underutilization of mental healthcare among this population. This study examined the implementation of the Refugee Health Screener-13 (RHS-13) in the health assessment for forced migrants in eight primary health care centres in Stockholm Region, Sweden.

Methods

A mixed-methods convergent parallel design was used, combining nurses self-reported quantitative data on the levels and reasons for RHS-13 use in the health assessment with qualitative interview data on the barriers and facilitators for RHS-13 use. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a coding framework for the qualitative analysis.

Results

Levels of RHS-13 use varied between primary health care centres, resulting in two groups: three centres with high-level (65–92%) and five centres with low-level (0–36%) implementation. Factors related to the tool itself, as well as the inner and outer context, influenced the use of RHS-13. Language barriers, insufficient time, and lack of trust in the validity and utility of RHS-13 were the main barriers, while its availability in many languages and that it was perceived as an important complement to the health assessment were the main facilitators.

Conclusion

RHS-13 contributes to the standardization of assessing mental health in the health assessment. Identifying context-based implementation strategies and addressing language and time issues as well as nurses trust in the tool's utility are recommended to enhance the use of RHS-13.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"有时就像破冰船":对难民健康筛查-13(RHS-13)实施情况的混合方法评估
背景被迫移民有罹患精神疾病的风险,但在这一人群中,精神卫生保健的利用率仍然不足。本研究考察了在瑞典斯德哥尔摩地区的八个初级卫生保健中心对被迫移民进行健康评估时难民健康筛查表-13(RHS-13)的实施情况。研究采用了混合方法的聚合平行设计,将护士自我报告的健康评估中使用 RHS-13 的水平和原因的定量数据与 RHS-13 使用障碍和促进因素的定性访谈数据相结合。结果各初级卫生保健中心使用 RHS-13 的水平不尽相同,最终形成两组:3 个中心的使用水平较高(65%-92%),5 个中心的使用水平较低(0%-36%)。与工具本身有关的因素以及内部和外部环境都影响了 RHS-13 的使用。语言障碍、时间不足以及对 RHS-13 的有效性和实用性缺乏信任是主要障碍,而 RHS-13 有多种语言版本以及被视为健康评估的重要补充则是主要促进因素。建议确定基于情境的实施策略,解决语言和时间问题,以及护士对工具效用的信任,以提高 RHS-13 的使用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Migration and Health
Journal of Migration and Health Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
65
审稿时长
153 days
期刊最新文献
Violence Against Women and its Effects on Mental Health and Quality of Life: A Study of Myanmar Migrant Workers in Central Thailand Everyday discrimination, co-ethnic social support and mood changes in young adult immigrants in Germany–Evidence from an ecological momentary assessment study Factors contributing to the mental wellbeing of Afghan migrants in Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic Exploring the impact of preconception care and unintended pregnancy on access to antenatal healthcare services among Rohingya women: Insights from a cross-sectional survey Sexual and reproductive health and rights of migrant women attending primary care in England: A population-based cohort study of 1.2 million individuals of reproductive age (2009–2018)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1