Immigration Judges' Perceptionsof Telephonic and In-Person Forensic Mental Health Evaluations.

Clinicians affiliated with medical human rights programs throughout the United States perform forensic evaluations of asylum seekers. Much of the best practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who incorporate forensic reports into their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess former immigration judges' perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the affidavits resulting from mental health evaluations and explored their attitudes toward telehealth evaluations. We conducted semistructured interviews in April and May 2020 with nine former judges and systematically analyzed them using consensual qualitative research methodology. Our findings were grouped in five domains: general preferences for affidavits; roles of affidavits in current legal climate; appraisal and comparison of sample affidavits; attitudes toward telephonic evaluations; and recommendations for telephonic evaluations. Forensic evaluators should consider the practice recommendations of judges, both for telephonic and in-person evaluations, which can bolster the usefulness of their evaluations in the adjudication process. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to incorporate immigration judges' perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations, and the first to assess judges' attitudes toward telephonic evaluations.

Egocentric social network characteristics and cardiovascular risk among patients with hypertension or diabetes in western Kenya: a cross-sectional analysis from the BIGPIC trial.

OBJECTIVES: Management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is an urgent challenge in low-income and middle-income countries, and interventions may require appraisal of patients' social networks to guide implementation. The purpose of this study is to determine whether egocentric social network characteristics (SNCs) of patients with chronic disease in western Kenya are associated with overall CVD risk and individual CVD risk factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of enrollment data (2017-2018) from the Bridging Income Generation with GrouP Integrated Care trial. Non-overlapping trust-only, health advice-only and multiplex (trust and health advice) egocentric social networks were elicited for each participant, and SNCs representing social cohesion were calculated. SETTING: 24 communities across four counties in western Kenya. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n=2890) were ≥35 years old with diabetes (fasting glucose ≥7 mmol/L) or hypertension. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: We hypothesised that SNCs would be associated with CVD risk status (QRISK3 score). Secondary outcomes were individual CVD risk factors. RESULTS: Among the 2890 participants, 2020 (70%) were women, and mean (SD) age was 60.7 (12.1) years. Forty-four per cent of participants had elevated QRISK3 score (≥10%). No relationship was observed between QRISK3 level and SNCs. In unadjusted comparisons, participants with any individuals in their trust network were more likely to report a good than a poor diet (41% vs 21%). SNCs for the trust and multiplex networks accounted for a substantial fraction of variation in measures of dietary quality and physical activity (statistically significant via likelihood ratio test, adjusted for false discovery rate). CONCLUSION: SNCs indicative of social cohesion appear to be associated with individual behavioural CVD risk factors, although not with overall CVD risk score. Understanding how SNCs of patients with chronic diseases relate to modifiable CVD risk factors could help inform network-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02501746; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02501746.

A toolkit for building medical programs for asylum seekers: Resources from the Mount Sinai Human Rights Program.

Forced migration has reached a peak worldwide and healthcare professionals and trainees are increasingly volunteering with medical human rights programs. The Mount Sinai Human Rights Program (MSHRP) provides pro bono forensic medical, gynecological, and psychological evaluations to document evidence of human rights abuses experienced by asylum seekers. From 2015 through 2018, MSHRP refined its workflow and processes to facilitate the coordination of 305 forensic asylum evaluations and 117 continuity care referrals. Here, we present a toolkit including data management tools, guiding questions to consider when establishing or expanding an asylum clinic, and key challenges and solutions from MSHRP's experience in service delivery. Building on existing descriptions of asylum clinics, this paper provides specific resources intended to help new programs hone their models to meet the increasing demand for forensic medical evaluations of asylum seekers and provide appropriate continuity care.

Piloting forensic tele-mental health evaluations of asylum seekers.

While the number of medical human rights programs has increased, there is substantial unmet need for forensic evaluations among asylum seekers throughout the United States. From September 2019 through May 2020, the Mount Sinai Human Rights Program has coordinated pro bono forensic mental health evaluations by telephone or video for individuals seeking protected immigration status who are unable to access in-person services. The national network clinicians conducted 32 forensic evaluations of individuals in eight U.S. states and Mexico seeking immigration relief. Remote forensic services have been a relevant solution for individuals in immigration detention, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Why US Health Care Should Think Globally.

Why should health care systems in the United States engage with the world's poorest populations abroad while tremendous inequalities in health status and access are pervasive domestically? Traditionally, three arguments have bolstered global engagement: (1) a moral obligation to ensure opportunities to live, (2) a duty to protect against health threats, and (3) a desire to protect against economic downturns precipitated by health crises. We expand this conversation, arguing that US-based clinicians, organizational stewards, and researchers should engage with and learn from low-resource settings' systems and products that deliver high-quality, cost-effective, inclusive care in order to better respond to domestic inequities. Ultimately, connecting "local" and "global" efforts will benefit both populations and is not a sacrifice of one for the other.