4.6 Article

Lessons to learn from the analysis of routine health data from Moria Refugee Camp on Lesvos, Greece

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 347-355

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdac127

关键词

humanitarian setting; mental health; non-communicable diseases; refugee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This report describes the health needs and healthcare access of refugees in Moria Camp on Lesvos, Greece. The most common chronic health conditions in the camp include musculoskeletal pain, mental health issues, and cardiac and endocrine conditions. Acute health problems also prevail, with high rates of injuries and wounds, respiratory infections, gastroenteritis, and skin problems, particularly scabies.
Background Refugees in humanitarian settings commonly experience many health needs and barriers to access healthcare; health data from these settings are infrequently reported, preventing effective healthcare provision. This report describes health needs of refugees in Moria Camp on Lesvos, Greece-Europe's largest refugee camp. Methods A set of routinely collected service data of 18 131 consultations of 11 938 patients, attending a primary care clinic in the camp over 6 months in 2019-20, was analysed retrospectively, focusing on chronic health conditions. Results The most frequent chronic conditions were musculoskeletal pain (25.1%), mental health (15.9%), cardiac (12.7%) and endocrine conditions (8.9%). In all, 70.4% of consultations were for acute health problems, with high rates of injuries and wounds (20.8%), respiratory infections (12.5%), gastroenteritis (10.7%) and skin problems (9.7%), particularly scabies. Conclusions The prevalence of acute and chronic health problems is high in this setting, with some likely attributable to the deplorable living conditions in the camp. Despite its magnitude, the interpretability of routine health data is limited. A research agenda is identified, and a framework for chronic disease management in refugee camps is proposed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据