English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A Martinez-Donate, X Zhang, E Gonzalez-Fagoaga, S Guendelman, C Amuedo-Dorantes, N Verdecias, G Rangel Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, United States Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, United States College of Public Health, University of Arizona, United States School of Public Health, University of California, United States Department of Economics, San Diego State University, United States U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission (Mexico Section), Mexico Background and Objectives: Mexican im/migrants are the largest foreign-born population and one of the most underserved ethnic minorities in the U.S. Previous research has shown low levels of healthcare access among this population. Our study examined the quality of, and satisfaction with, health services received by Mexican im/migrants at different migration phases and contexts. Methods: We used data from a probability survey of migrant flows conducted in the U.S.-Mexico border city of Tijuana, Mexico. Descriptive statistics and adjusted logistic regressions were used to characterize the health services received by migrants at the pre-departure (N = 349) and return (N = 190) phases (Mexico); and at the destination (N = 651) and interception/ deportation (N = 351) phases (U.S.). Results: In Mexico, 59.6% of migrants at pre-departure and 40.5% of returnees had received health care services in the last 12 months. Among them, 45% and 30.0%, respectively, rated the care received as excellent. Returnees were more likely to receive care in small clinics (AOR=3.5, 95% CI: 1.34, 9.15) and lack health insurance (AOR=.37, 95% CI: .14, .96). In the U.S., 45.6% and 49.0% of migrants at destination and deportation received health services. Among them, 30.0% and 26.1% rated services as excellent. Deported migrants were more likely to receive care in small/informal clinics (AOR=3.79, 95% CI: 1.75, 8.10) or detention centres (AOR=34.8, 95% CI: 11.9, 101), lack insurance (AOR=.11, CI 95%: .05, .23), see a provider that did not speak Spanish (AOR=2.43, 95% CI: 1.07, 5.53), have difficulty understanding instructions (AOR=6.19, 95% CI: 2.27, 16.8), and not to receive the service they needed (AOR=3.20, 95% CI: 1.15, 8.92). Conclusions: For Mexican im/migrants, health care access and quality vary by migration phase and context. Efforts to promote timely and quality healthcare across the migration continuum are imperative. Special attention must be paid to migrants at risk for, or subject to, deportation.

7.5-O6Looking beyond access: an examination of health care experiences among Mexican migrants by migration phase and context