Cargando…

Health services satisfaction and medical exclusion among migrant youths in Gauteng Province of South Africa: A cross-sectional analysis of the GCRO survey (2017−2018)

BACKGROUND: Medical xenophobia of migrant (either in-migrants or immigrants) youths is an ongoing problem in contemporary South African society. Medical mistreatment by healthcare workers and social phobia from migrant youths have been attributed to major obstacles to healthcare utilization as well...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Akokuwebe, Monica Ewomazino, Osuafor, Godswill Nwabuisi, Likoko, Salmon, Idemudia, Erhabor Sunday
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10686501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38019834
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293958
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Medical xenophobia of migrant (either in-migrants or immigrants) youths is an ongoing problem in contemporary South African society. Medical mistreatment by healthcare workers and social phobia from migrant youths have been attributed to major obstacles to healthcare utilization as well as health services satisfaction. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and factors contributing to health services satisfaction and medical exclusion among migrant youths in Gauteng province in South Africa. METHODS: The Round 5 Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO) Quality of Life (QoL) survey was conducted in 2017‒2018, a nationally representative survey piloted every two years in South Africa, was utilized in this study. A 2-year cohort study of 24,889 respondents aged 18 to 29 and a baseline data consisted of 4,872 respondents, comprising non-migrants, in-migrants and immigrants, from where 2,162 in-migrants and immigrants were utilized as the sample size. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-Square analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,162 migrants, comprising 35.4% in-migrants and 9.0% of immigrants, from the 4,872 respondents, were included in the analysis. The prevalence of medical exclusion of in-migrant and immigrant youths were 5.5% and 4.2%, and the majority of them reported the use of public health facilities (in-migrants ‒ 84.3% vs. immigrants ‒ 87.1%). At the bivariate level, demographic (age, sex, and population group), economic (employed and any income) and health-related (no medical aid and household member with mental health) factors were significantly associated with medical exclusion (ρ≤0.05). The adjusted odds ratio showed that only female gender (AOR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.678, 1.705), no medical aid cover (AOR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.450, 3.362), and neither (AOR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.606, 4.174) or dissatisfied (AOR: 4.29, 95% CI: 2.528, 7.270) were independent predictors of medical exclusion. CONCLUSION: Having no medical aid cover, being a female and dissatisfied, or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with health services significantly increased the odds of medical exclusion among migrant youths. To increase healthcare utilization and ensuring adequate medical care of migrant youths, opting for medical aid insurance without increasing costs should be guaranteed. Therefore, there should be no consequences for lack of residence status or correct documentation papers when accessing healthcare services among migrant youths in South Africa.