Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of content-related information

From: Utilisation of medical rehabilitation services by persons of working age with a migrant background, in comparison to non-migrants: a scoping review

No.AuthorsLinked sourceGroups (and their origin) with and without migrant backgroundDifferentiation of the migrant status Research focusDifferences between groups
   GermansTurkishFormer YugoslavianFormer citizens of the Soviet-UnionResettlerMediterranean (S, G, P, I)Other (e.g. non-Turkish, non-German, EU-nationals)NationalityPlace of birthMigration experience/status/ immigration after 1949Spoken/native languageOther (e.g. PMB and non-PMB not specified)Medical indicationsaUtilisation of medical rehabilitation servicesBarriers to medical rehabilitation servicesSatisfaction with the utilisation of rehabilitation servicesPerceptions/ expectations and needs/ intentionsRehabilitation (treatment) success/ treatment outcomeWork-related performanceReturn to work 
1.Aksakal et al. 2018 [27]b      o    x   xx   Insufficient knowledge, treatment desires, language barriers for PMB compared to non-PMB
2.Brause et al. 2010 [28][29, 30] x    xx*   x1-6xx xxx Turkish PMB: lower rehabilitation success and work ability for musculoskeletal/connective tissue, mental illnesses metabolism/digestion and other (respiratory diseases) than for non-PMB
Barriers for Turkish PMB (access, knowledge, language, culture)
3.Brzoska et al. 2019 [31][32]x     xxx xx x      German nationals (non-PMB and PMB) and non-German nationals did not differ in their utilisation of rehabilitation
4.Brzoska et al. 2019 [33] x   x xx   Xc x      Foreigners (PMB) compared to Germans without Resettler status had a lower chance to use medical rehabilitation
Resettler had a higher chance of using rehabilitation compared to foreigners
5.Brzoska et al. 2017 [34] xxx  xxx    1-3,6  x    Lower probability for satisfaction with rehabilitation for Turkish nationals (PMB)
Other foreign nationals were as satisfied as German nationals (non-PMB)
6.Brzoska et al. 2016 [35] xxx  xxx         xx Non-Germans report less favourable outcomes, Turkish and former Yugoslavian origin have a higher chance for a poor treatment outcome than patients from Mediterranean countries
7.Brzoska et al. 2012 [36][13]xxx  xx x x      xx Non-Germans showed a higher chance for low occupational performance after completing the rehabilitation a lower effectiveness of rehabilitation for Turkish and former Yugoslavian compared to Germans
8.Brzoska et al. 2010 [13][15, 37, 21, 38,39,40, 20]xxx xxxxx xx1-6xx xxX Non-Germans less utilised rehabilitation than Germans,
Foreigner have a higher chance than Germans for occupational diseases, lower rehabilitation occupational performance and effectiveness after rehabilitation, PMB had barriers for utilisation compared to non-PMB: expectations, information deficit, missing intention to apply, language and culture
9.Erbstößer/ Zollmann 2015 [41] xxxx xxx   x1-6x   xxxNon-Germans less utilised rehabilitation (heterogeneous for nationalities), had less often a full work performance after rehabilitation than Germans,
Differences in indications e.g. for musculoskeletal rehabilitation: patients from former Soviet-Union utilised more than other nationals and Germans
10.Göbber et al. 2010 [42][43] x    xx  xx2-5   xxxxPMB were pension-oriented, desired for gender-specific treatment
PMB had a shorter treatment-duration, negative work performance (subjective), more mental and somatoform illnesses than non-PMB
11.Gruner et al. 2012 [44] xxxx x   x x5   xxx PMB had a higher frequency for diseases, less work performance before and after rehabilitation (subjective), pension desire, are sicker at the beginning of rehabilitation, men (non-PMB) benefitted less
12.Höhne 2007a [45] xx     X   x1-3,5-6x    x Disabled pensioners (PMB) utilised less rehabilitation services in the last five years before retirement
13.Höhne / Schubert 2007b [46] xx    Xx    1-6x    x Differences in the medical rehabilitation benefits between Germans and Non-Germans in the last 5 years before retirement: Non-German had a higher incapacity for work, mental illnesses affect non-Germans more than Germans
14.Höhne et al. 2007c [47] x     Xx    1-3,5-6x   xx Differences in the utilisation of rehabilitation: Germans utilised more services of rehabilitation than PMB
15.Jankowiak et al. 2018 [48] x     xx   x x      Medical rehabilitation was less utilised by non-Germans than Germans,
Applications for rehabilitation were lower for non-Germans than Germans
16.Kaluscha et al. 2011 [49] xxx  xxx    1-5x      Turkish nationals utilise rehabilitation more often due to mental illnesses than Germans
17.Kessemaier et al. 2019 [50]       xxx xx   x    PMB showed severe symptoms and were not as satisfied with the rehabilitation as non-PMB
18.MHH/ EMZ e.V. 2017 [51][52, 53, 19]xx x  x  x x  x x   Barriers to utilise rehabilitation: migrant specific (information deficit), person-related barriers (language), systematic-related barriers (bureaucracy), barriers independent of migrant status (fear of job loss),
Increased application intention through the campaign for PMB
19.Kohler/ Ziese 2004 [54] x     xxxx   x      PMB utilised rehabilitation less often than Germans
20.Maier 2008 [55]  x    xx   x1-3,5x   x  Turkish rehabilitants utilised more rehabilitation services than the non-Turkish, health did not improve as much as in non-Turkish,
differences in indications: more musculoskeletal and mental illnesses for Turkish PMB
21.Pfeiffer et al. 2010 [43][42]xxxxxxxx x x2-4   xx xPMB were pension-oriented, had a shorter treatment-duration, more mental and somatoform illnesses than non-PMB, other treatment expectations than non-PMB
22.Ritter et al. 2017 [56] x     Xx    2x      Lower chance of utilisation for foreign nationals with hip and knee arthroplasty compared to Germans
23.Schröder et al. 2020 [57] x     xxxx   x      First-generation migrants had a lower chance of utilising outpatient rehabilitation than non-migrants
No differences between first- and second-generation migrants and non-migrants for any rehabilitation
24.Yilmaz-Aslan et al. 2017 [58][59]xx        xx1xxxx   Turkish PMB in comparison to Germans: higher need for support (information and emotional), psycho-oncological care was rarely utilised, barriers for Turkish-PMB e.g. information deficit, culture, language and prejudice
25.Zollmann et al. 2016 [60] xxx   xx    5x   xxxTurkish PMB is largest group in psychosomatic rehabilitation (year 2012), were sicker at the beginning of rehabilitation than non-Turkish nationals, reintegration into working life is less successful for them
  1. a1 neoplasms, 2 muscle/skeletal/connective tissue, 3 cardiovascular, 4 metabolism/digestion, 5 mental illnesses (incl. addiction), 6 other (not described, e.g. respiratory diseases)
  2. bPersonal Communication with Aksakal and Yilmaz-Aslan (March 2020)
  3. cidentification of resettlers from information about prior occupation in the country of origin in routine data
  4. *application of a name-based algorithm to identify Turkish rehabilitants in the data from the German statutory pension insurance