"Better than having no evaluation done": a pilot project to conduct remote asylum evaluations for clients in a migrant encampment in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Asylum evaluations are highly specialized medico-legal encounters to collect physical or mental health evidence for use in immigration proceedings. Although the field of asylum medicine is growing, access to these evaluations is still inadequate, particularly for those in United States immigration detention or other forms of custody, such as under the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols or "Remain in Mexico" policy. Given advances in telehealth in recent years and growing evidence of similar outcomes with in-person management, it seems prudent to examine whether remote modalities may also be effective for conducting mental health asylum evaluations in hard-to-reach populations. METHODS: We analyzed the responses of 12 U.S. clinicians who conducted 25 cross-border remote mental health evaluations with clients in Mexico prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and completed a post-evaluation survey regarding their impressions and experiences of the remote encounter. Data were coded through a process of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The average evaluation time was 2.3 h, slightly shorter than might be expected from an in-person encounter. Five themes emerged from the coding process: rapport building, achieving overall goal, comparison of in-person vs. remote, technical issues, and coordination. Clinicians encountered a number of challenges including technical difficulties and a decreased ability to establish rapport. Nearly uniformly, however, clinicians noted that despite difficulties, they were able achieve the goals of the evaluation, including rapport building and diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Remote evaluations appear to achieve their intended goal and may be useful in expanding legal options for hard-to-reach asylum seekers.

The psychological effects of forced family separation on asylum-seeking children and parents at the US-Mexico border: A qualitative analysis of medico-legal documents.

The U.S. government forcibly separated more than 5,000 children from their parents between 2017 and 2018 through its "Zero Tolerance" policy. It is unknown how many of the children have since been reunited with their parents. As of August 1, 2021, however, at least 1,841 children are still separated from their parents. This study systematically examined narratives obtained as part of a medico-legal process by trained clinical experts who interviewed and evaluated parents and children who had been forcibly separated. The data analysis demonstrated that 1) parents and children shared similar pre-migration traumas and the event of forced family separation in the U.S.; 2) they reported signs and symptoms of trauma following reunification; 3) almost all individuals met criteria for DSM diagnoses, even after reunification; 4) evaluating clinicians consistently concluded that mental health treatment was indicated for both parents and children; and 5) signs of malingering were absent in all cases.

Associations between memory loss and trauma in US asylum seekers: A retrospective review of medico-legal affidavits.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. immigration system mandates that persons seeking asylum prove their persecution claim is credible and their fear of returning home is well-founded. However, this population represents a highly trauma-exposed group, with neuropsychiatric symptoms consequent to prior torture or maltreatment that may interfere with cognitive function and their ability to recall their trauma. These memory lapses may be incorrectly perceived by asylum adjudicators as indicators of dishonesty and jeopardize the person's credibility and asylum claim. Our retrospective mixed methods study seeks to present associations between trauma and memory loss in a sample of persons seeking asylum to the U.S. and describe how memory impairments manifest in this trauma-exposed population. METHODS: We randomly selected 200 medico-legal affidavits from 1346 affidavits collected in the past 30 years, as part of the Physicians for Human Rights Asylum Network connecting clinicians with legal providers for medical and/or psychiatric affidavits of U.S. asylum seekers and persons seeking other forms of humanitarian relief (hereafter, "asylum seekers"). Data was extracted from these affidavits using a coding manual informed by the Istanbul Protocol, the global standard for torture documentation. Seven affidavits were excluded due to missing age. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association of memory loss with neuropsychiatric diagnoses: head trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression. We supplemented these findings with a qualitative content analysis of the affidavits documenting memory loss. Memory loss presented among the asylum seekers' affidavits in several ways: memory gaps of the traumatic event; challenges with presenting a clear chronology of the trauma, avoidance of traumatic memories, and persistent short-term memory loss interfering with daily activity. RESULTS: A majority of the sample received a neuropsychiatric diagnosis: 69% (n = 132) of asylum-seekers received a diagnosis of PTSD and 55% (n = 106) of depression. Head trauma was reported among 30% (n = 58) of affidavits. Further, 68% (n = 131) reported being subject to physical violence and 20% (n = 39) were documented as being at risk of suicide. Memory loss was documented among 21% (n = 40) asylum-seekers. In adjusted models, both PTSD and depression, but not head trauma, were associated with memory loss (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Stakeholders in the asylum process, spanning the medical, legal and immigration enforcement sectors, must be aware of the interplay of trauma and memory loss and how they might impact immigration proceedings for this vulnerable population.