BackgroundIn many European countries including Germany, migrants utilize preventive services less frequently than the majority population. This is also true for the utilization of dental checkups. Little is known about which demographic, social, behavioral, and health-related factors influence the decision of migrants to seek preventive dental health care and how these factors differ from those in non-migrants. The aim of the present study was to examine the role of these factors among migrants and non-migrants residing in Germany.MethodsData from cross-sectional national health surveys are used, providing information on preventive dental health behavior from n = 41,220 individuals, of which 15.0% are migrants. Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use is the conceptual framework of the investigation. Multiple logistic regression models were applied to examine the role of different predisposing and enabling factors. Interaction terms were included in order to examine whether determinants differ between migrants and non-migrants. Average marginal effects (AMEs) are reported in addition to odds ratios (ORs) as measures of effect size which are robust against bias arising from unobserved heterogeneity.ResultsMigrants are at an about 36% lower chance of utilizing regular dental checkups than non-migrants [OR = 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.68); AME = −0.081 (95% CI = −0.093, −0.069)]. Differences are partly explained by the influence of demographic, social, behavioral, and health-related factors [adjusted OR = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.73); AME = −0.065 (95% CI = −0.076, −0.053)]. Younger age, being male, lower socioeconomic status, a non-statutory health insurance, not living in a relationship, living in the Western part of Germany and in an urban setting, and poor limited social support were associated with a lower chance of utilizing regular dental checkups. Interaction effects could be observed for age and for the type of health insurance.DiscussionThe study identifies different enabling and predisposing factors that are relevant for the utilization of dental checkups among the population in Germany, some of which differ between migrants and non-migrants. Differences are particularly pronounced for younger ages. This differs from findings on other preventive services where older migrants tend to be more disadvantaged. Additional explanatory factors such as barriers that migrants experience in the dental health care system need to be considered in order to implement patient-oriented services and to reduce disparities in access to dental prevention.

BackgroundMigrants in many European countries including Germany tend to utilize preventive measures less frequently than the majority population. Little is known about the dental health of migrants as well as about their oral health behaviour, particularly in the adult population. The aim of this study was to examine differences in the uptake of annual dental check-ups in adult migrants and non-migrants in Germany.MethodsWe used data from the cross-sectional survey ‘German Health Update 2010’ conducted by the Robert Koch Institute (n = 22,050). Data from 21,741 German-speaking respondents with information on the use of dental check-ups was available, of which 3404 (15.7%) were migrants. Multiple logistic regression models were applied to adjust for demographic and socioeconomic confounders, including the place of residence as well as type of health insurance.ResultsMigrants were generally younger, had a lower socioeconomic status and showed a lower utilization of dental check-ups. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for utilization was 0.67 (95%-CI = 0.61–0.73). After adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic confounders the chance only increased slightly (adjusted OR = 0.71; 95%-CI = 0.65–0.77).ConclusionsThe analysis shows that migration status is associated with a reduced chance of attending dental check-ups, independently of demographic and socioeconomic factors. The influence of other factors, such as type of health insurance and place of residence had also no influence on the association. Migrants are exposed to different barriers in the health care system, comprising the patient, provider and system level. Further studies need to examine the relevant barriers for the uptake of preventive dental services in order to devise appropriate migrant- sensitive measures of dental prevention.

Background Vaccination against COVID-19 has been available in Germany since December 2020. However, about 30% of the population report not wanting to be vaccinated. In order to increase the willingness of the population to get vaccinated, data on the acceptance of vaccination and its influencing factors are necessary. Little is known about why individuals refuse the COVID-19 vaccination. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons leading to rejecting vaccination, based on posts from three social media sites. Methods The German-language versions of Instagram, Twitter and YouTube were searched regarding negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Data was extracted until a saturation effect could be observed. The data included posts created from January 20, 2020 to May 2, 2021. This time frame roughly covers the period from the first reports of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 up to the general availability of vaccines against COVID-19 in Germany. We used an interpretive thematic approach to analyze the data and to inductively generate codes, subcategories and categories. Results Based on 333 posts written by 323 contributing users, we identified six main categories of reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination: Low perceived benefit of vaccination, low perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, health concerns, lack of information, systemic mistrust and spiritual or religious reasons. The analysis reveals a lack of information among users and the spread of misinformation with regard to COVID-19 and vaccination. Users feel inadequately informed about vaccination or do not understand the information available. These information gaps may be related to information not being sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the target group. In addition to limited information for the general population, misinformation on the internet can also be an important reason for refusing vaccination. Conclusions The study emphasizes the relevance of providing trustworthy and quality-assured information on COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination to all population groups. In addition, vaccinations should be easily accessible in order to promote the population’s willingness to be vaccinated.

Background Antimicrobial resistance is considered one of the major threats to global health. The emergence of resistant microorganisms is a consequence of irrational use of antibiotics. In Turkey, the consumption of antibiotics is relatively high and antibiotics are among the most commonly used drugs. However, Turkey has adopted new, more restrictive policies and regulations on antibiotics. In addition, Turkish migrants to EU countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, may encounter health systems that promote a more restrictive and rational antibiotic use. The objective of this paper was to explore the variation in implemented policies related to rational antibiotic use that citizens in Turkey and Turkish migrants in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are subjected to and to discuss the implications for the promotion of rational antibiotic use. Data were collected through focus groups and individual interviews with citizens, physicians and pharmacists in the four countries. In total, 130 respondents were interviewed. Content analysis was used. Results Three relevant themes were identified: Implementation of regulations and recommendations, Access to antibiotics and Need for health communication. Irrational use of antibiotics was reported mainly in Turkey. While it had become less likely to get antibiotics without a prescription, non-prescribed antibiotics remained a problem in Turkey. In the three EU countries, there were also alternative ways of getting antibiotics. Low levels of knowledge about the rational antibiotic use were reported in Turkey, while there were several sources of information on this in the EU countries. Communication with and trust in physicians were considered to be important. There were also system barriers, such as lacking opportunities for physicians to manage care in accordance with current evidence in Turkey and factors limiting access to care in EU countries. Conclusions Several fields of importance for promoting rational antibiotic use were identified. There is a need for harmonisation of health-related regulations and policy programmes. Antibiotics should only be available with a prescription. Programmes for rational antibiotic use should be implemented on a broad scale, in medical care, at pharmacies and in the population. Methods for health communication and patient-centred care should be further developed and implemented in this field.