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

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

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 Selection bias was only expected to be sufficiently excluded when the study population was based on a random selection from a national sample.
2 Immigrant groups and the majority population originated from the same source population when both samples where retrieved from the same basic population
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 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

ISSN: 1472-6963