[Migration and health in Germany-available data sources]. / Migration und Gesundheit in Deutschland ­ eine Bestandsaufnahme der Datenquellen.

BACKGROUND: Migration background plays an important role in analyses of health inequalities in Germany. The heterogeneity of people with and without migration background requires a differentiated recording of migration-related characteristics. The latest overview of representative data sources from the Health Reporting (GBE) that included information on migration background was compiled in 2008. AIM: The aim of this article is to describe existing data sources reporting the health situation of people with and without a migration background. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting from the websites and publications of owners of GBE data, representative studies and routine data sources were identified. All sources that consider at least one migration-related characteristic were included. For all included studies, migration-related characteristics, information on the social situation, and health-related indicators were collected. RESULTS: A total of 46 data sources (including 19 routine data sources and 27 studies) were included. The most common indicators of the migration background are nationality (n = 36) and the country of birth (n = 29). Health-related indicators cover a wide range of issues. DISCUSSION: Routine data sources continue to collect little information on the migration background (usually only nationality) and thus constrain migration-differentiated analyses of the health situation. Survey data allow for more nuanced analysis. However, the actual analysis possibilities and content knowledge of the respective data sources were not the subject of this article.

[ICD coding of causes of death: challenges for calculating the burden of disease in Germany]. / ICD-Codierung von Todesursachen: Herausforderungen bei der Berechnung der Krankheitslast in Deutschland.

In the project BURDEN 2020 - "The burden of disease in Germany and its regions" - the years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality are calculated on the basis of official cause-of-death statistics. This requires the identification and redistribution of the so-called ill-defined ICD codes. "Ill-defined" means that an ICD code does not sufficiently reflect the cause of death, such that it is not informative for the calculation of the burden of disease.The first steps on the way to calculating cause-specific YLL are presented. Different frameworks of ill-defined codes are compared. The number of deaths with ill-defined codes that can be found in the German cause-of-death statistics in absolute and relative terms are analyzed, including how they are distributed by age, sex, and region.According to the WHO framework, 15.6% of the 925,200 deaths in Germany in 2015 can be identified as ill-defined. According to the framework of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD), the proportion of ill-defined codes is 26.6%. The ICD-related distribution patterns hardly differ between WHO and IHME classifications. Considerable differences exist between the federal states, with shares of ill-defined codes between 16 and 35% (IHME framework).The cause-of-death statistics in Germany contain a considerable proportion of ill-defined codes. The differences between the federal states can only partially be explained by different electronic data processing. Due to further dissemination and improvement of electronic data collection, higher quality of cause-of-death statistics can be expected in the future.

BURDEN 2020-Burden of disease in Germany at the national and regional level.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy measures need non-interest-guided information about the health status of a population and the diseases that affect the population the most. In such cases, a national burden of disease study can provide reliable insights at the regional level. AIM: This article presents the potential of the BURDEN 2020 project and its expected outcome for Germany at the national and regional level. METHODS: The BURDEN 2020 project uses several indicators including years of life lost (YLL) to cover the impact of mortality and years lived with disability (YLD) to cover morbidity. The sum of both is the measure of population health called disability adjusted life years (DALY). RESULTS: The study ranks individual diseases and risk factors based on their impact on population health. The burden of disease approach is assumed to be sensitive to subnational differences and may generate immediate benefits for regional planning. The BURDEN 2020 study will pilot a national burden of disease study for Germany that will later be transformed into a continuous data processing and visualization tool. This is done by using, modifying and supplementing the methodology employed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study to better fit the needs of health policy in Germany. This study is aimed at calculating the disease burden for up to 17 preselected diseases. Furthermore, the estimates of burden of disease are attributed to a selected set of risk factors. CONCLUSION: The Burden 2020 study will provide the results of a new, health-related data processing system to the public. This includes a noninterest-guided presentation of the burden of disease (DALY) in Germany at the national and regional level.

Erratum to: BURDEN 2020-Burden of disease in Germany at the national and regional level.

Erratum to:Bundesgesundheitsbl (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-018-2793-0 The original publication of this article contained an error in the list of the authors, in which the contributing author Christian Schmidt was missing. The full list of authors has now been updated. The original article ….

Age-specific and cause-specific mortality contributions to the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy in Germany, 2003-21: an ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Earlier death among people in socioeconomically deprived circumstances has been found internationally and for various causes of death, resulting in a considerable life-expectancy gap between socioeconomic groups. We examined how age-specific and cause-specific mortality contributions to the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy have changed at the area level in Germany over time. METHODS: In this ecological study, official German population and cause-of-death statistics provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany for the period Jan 1, 2003, to Dec 31, 2021, were linked to district-level data of the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation. Life-table and decomposition methods were applied to calculate life expectancy by area-level deprivation quintile and decompose the life-expectancy gap between the most and least deprived quintiles into age-specific and cause-specific mortality contributions. FINDINGS: Over the study period, population numbers varied between 80 million and 83 million people per year, with the number of deaths ranging from 818 000 to 1 024 000, covering the entire German population. Between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2019, the gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived quintiles of districts increased by 0·7 years among females (from 1·1 to 1·8 years) and by 0·1 years among males (from 3·0 to 3·1 years). Thereafter, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap increased more rapidly to 2·2 years in females and 3·5 years in males in 2021. Between 2003 and 2021, the causes of death that contributed the most to the life-expectancy gap were cardiovascular diseases and cancer, with declining contributions of cardiovascular disease deaths among those aged 70 years and older and increasing contributions of cancer deaths among those aged 40-74 years over this period. COVID-19 mortality among individuals aged 45 years and older was the strongest contributor to the increase in life-expectancy gap after 2019. INTERPRETATION: To reduce the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy, effective efforts are needed to prevent early deaths from cardiovascular disease and cancer in socioeconomically deprived populations, with cancer prevention and control becoming an increasingly important field of action in this respect. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid and European Research Council.

Burden of major cancer types in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with a growing burden also observed in Kazakhstan. This study evaluates the burden of common cancers in Almaty, Kazakhstan's major city, from 2017 to 2021, utilizing data from the Information System of the Ministry of Health. In Kazakhstan, most common cancers among men include lung, stomach, and prostate cancer, while breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers are predominant among women. Employing measures like disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), we found that selected cancer types accounted for a total DALY burden of 25,016.60 in 2021, with mortality contributing more than disability (95.2% vs. 4.7%) with the ratio of non-fatal to fatal outcomes being 1.4 times higher in women than in men. The share of non-fatal burden (YLD) proportion within DALYs increased for almost all selected cancer types, except stomach and cervical cancer over the observed period in Almaty. Despite the overall increase in cancer burden observed during the time period, a downward trend in specific cancers suggests the efficacy of implemented cancer control strategies. Comparison with global trends highlights the significance of targeted interventions. This analysis underscores the need for continuous comprehensive cancer control strategies in Almaty and Kazakhstan, including vaccination against human papillomavirus, stomach cancer screening programs, and increased cancer awareness initiatives.

The mortality burden related to COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 - years of life lost and excess mortality in 13 countries and sub-national regions in Southern and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

Introduction: Between 2021 and 2023, a project was funded in order to explore the mortality burden (YLL-Years of Life Lost, excess mortality) of COVID-19 in Southern and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. Methods: For each national or sub-national region, data on COVID-19 deaths and population data were collected for the period March 2020 to December 2021. Unstandardized and age-standardised YLL rates were calculated according to standard burden of disease methodology. In addition, all-cause mortality data for the period 2015-2019 were collected and used as a baseline to estimate excess mortality in each national or sub-national region in the years 2020 and 2021. Results: On average, 15-30 years of life were lost per death in the various countries and regions. Generally, YLL rates per 100,000 were higher in countries and regions in Southern and Eastern Europe compared to Central Asia. However, there were differences in how countries and regions defined and counted COVID-19 deaths. In most countries and sub-national regions, YLL rates per 100,000 (both age-standardised and unstandardized) were higher in 2021 compared to 2020, and higher amongst men compared to women. Some countries showed high excess mortality rates, suggesting under-diagnosis or under-reporting of COVID-19 deaths, and/or relatively large numbers of deaths due to indirect effects of the pandemic. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the COVID-19 mortality burden was greater in many countries and regions in Southern and Eastern Europe compared to Central Asia. However, heterogeneity in the data (differences in the definitions and counting of COVID-19 deaths) may have influenced our results. Understanding possible reasons for the differences was difficult, as many factors are likely to play a role (e.g., differences in the extent of public health and social measures to control the spread of COVID-19, differences in testing strategies and/or vaccination rates). Future cross-country analyses should try to develop structured approaches in an attempt to understand the relative importance of such factors. Furthermore, in order to improve the robustness and comparability of burden of disease indicators, efforts should be made to harmonise case definitions and reporting for COVID-19 deaths across countries.

Association between the starting age of non-parental Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), and psycho-social problems in adolescence in West and East Germany - a natural experiment using data from the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS).

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to investigate the association between the start age of non-parental Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and psycho-social problems in adolescence. The similarities and differences between West and East Germany were also investigated in a natural experiment. METHODS: Our sample consisted of 1022 children (621 from West Germany, 401 from East Germany) aged 3-4 years at wave 2003-2006 that were followed up to wave 2014-2017 as adolescents (mean ± SD age = 14.4 ± 0.03 years) in the KiGGS study. The psycho-social problems were measured by the parent-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at wave 2014-2017. Linear regression was used to explore the relationship between ECEC-start-age and psycho-social problems in adolescence in Germany, and stratified by West and East Germany. RESULTS: Those who started ECEC between 2 and 3 years old (reference) had the lowest scores of psycho-social problems in the whole Germany and in West Germany in adolescence. In comparison, those who started ECEC older than 3 years old had higher scores of internalizing psycho-social problems in both West Germany (with statistically significant results) and East Germany (with a relatively larger effect size but insignificant results). Those who started ECEC younger than 1 year old had statistically significant higher scores for externalizing psycho-social problems in West Germany, even though less children started ECEC younger than 1 in West Germany compared to East Germany. This significant association was not found in East Germany. Those who started ECEC between 1 and 2 years old tended to have higher scores of externalizing psycho-social problems in both West and East Germany. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that if children start ECEC older than 3 years or younger than 2 years, more attention needs to be given to internalizing or externalizing psycho-social problems respectively. The regional differences for children younger than 1 year old may suggest a selection effect in West Germany where only fewer parents bring babies to ECEC, while the regional similarities for children over 3 years old indicate the importance of providing access to ECEC for children over 3 years old.

Recommendations for collecting and analysing migration-related determinants in public health research.

Background: According to the definition of the German Federal Statistical Office, about every fourth person living in Germany has a so-called migration background (MB), i.e., the person or at least one of their parents was born without German citizenship. However, MB has been defined differently in many studies. Also, the MB summarises people in different living situations, making differentiated analysis in health science more difficult. This article formulates recommendations for the collection and analysis of migration-related, as well as social and structural, determinants of health. Indicators for capturing relevant determinants of health: As part of the Improving Health Monitoring in Migrant Populations project (IMIRA), the previous approaches to operationalise and measure migration-related determinants were revised based on literature research and exchange formats, such as workshops, meetings, congress contributions, etc. Instead of MB, the country of birth of the respondents and their parents, duration of residence, citizenship(s), residence status, and German language proficiency should be recorded as minimum indicators and analysed as individual variables. Further social and structural determinants, such as socioeconomic position, working and housing conditions, or self-reported discrimination, should be included. Conclusions: In order to describe health inequalities and to specifically identify the needs of people with a history of migration, a mutual and differentiated consideration of migration-related and social determinants of health is essential.

The Burden of Disease due to COVID-19 (BoCO-19): A study protocol for a secondary analysis of surveillance data in Southern and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an extensive impact on public health worldwide. However, in many countries burden of disease indicators for COVID-19 have not yet been calculated or used for monitoring. The present study protocol describes an approach developed in the project "The Burden of Disease due to COVID-19. Towards a harmonization of population health metrics for the surveillance of dynamic outbreaks" (BoCO-19). The process of data collection and aggregation across 14 different countries and sub-national regions in Southern and Eastern Europe and Central Asia is described, as well as the methodological approaches used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study implemented in BoCO-19 is a secondary data analysis, using information from national surveillance systems as part of mandatory reporting on notifiable diseases. A customized data collection template is used to gather aggregated data on population size as well as COVID-19 cases and deaths. Years of life lost (YLL), as one component of the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY), are calculated as described in a recently proposed COVID-19 disease model (the 'Burden-EU' model) for the calculation of DALY. All-cause mortality data are collected for excess mortality sensitivity analyses. For the calculation of Years lived with disability (YLD), the Burden-EU model is adapted based on recent evidence. Because Covid-19 cases vary in terms of disease severity, the possibility and suitability of applying a uniform severity distribution of cases across all countries and sub-national regions will be explored. An approach recently developed for the Global Burden of Disease Study, that considers post-acute consequences of COVID-19, is likely to be adopted. Findings will be compared to explore the quality and usability of the existing data, to identify trends across age-groups and sexes and to formulate recommendations concerning potential improvements in data availability and quality. DISCUSSION: BoCO-19 serves as a collaborative platform in order to build international capacity for the calculation of burden of disease indicators, and to support national experts in the analysis and interpretation of country-specific data, including their strengths and weaknesses. Challenges include inherent differences in data collection and reporting systems between countries, as well as assumptions that have to be made during the calculation process.

Burden of Disease of COVID-19: Strengthening the Collaboration for National Studies.

Objectives: Quantifying the combined impact of morbidity and mortality is a key enabler to assessing the impact of COVID-19 across countries and within countries relative to other diseases, regions, or demographics. Differences in methods, data sources, and definitions of mortality due to COVID-19 may hamper comparisons. We describe efforts to support countries in estimating the national-level burden of COVID-19 using disability-adjusted life years. Methods: The European Burden of Disease Network developed a consensus methodology, as well as a range of capacity-building activities to support burden of COVID-19 studies. These activities have supported 11 national studies so far, with study periods between January 2020 and December 2021. Results: National studies dealt with various data gaps and different assumptions were made to face knowledge gaps. Still, they delivered broadly comparable results that allow for interpretation of consistencies, as well as differences in the quantified direct health impact of the pandemic. Discussion: Harmonized efforts and methodologies have allowed for comparable estimates and communication of results. Future studies should evaluate the impact of interventions, and unravel the indirect health impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

The Burden of Disease in Germany at the National and Regional Level.

BACKGROUND: .Summary measures such as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) are becoming increasingly important for the standardized assessment of the burden of disease due to death and disability. The BURDEN 2020 pilot project was designed as an independent burden-of-disease study for Germany, which was based on nationwide data, but which also yielded regional estimates. METHODS: DALY is defined as the sum of years of life lost due to death (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). YLL is the difference between the age at death due to disease and the remaining life expectancy at this age, while YLD quantifies the number of years individuals have spent with health impairments. Data are derived mainly from causes of death statistics, population health surveys, and claims data from health insurers. RESULTS: In 2017, there were approximately 12 million DALY in Germany, or 14 584 DALY per 100 000 inhabitants. Conditions which caused the greatest number of DALY were coronary heart disease (2321 DALY), low back pain (1735 DALY), and lung cancer (1197 DALY). Headache and dementia accounted for a greater disease burden in women than in men, while lung cancer and alcohol use disorders accounted for a greater disease burden in men than in women. Pain disorders and alcohol use disorders were the leading causes of DALY among young adults of both sexes. The disease burden rose with age for some diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, dementia, and diabetes mellitus. For some diseases and conditions, the disease burden varied by geographical region. CONCLUSION: The results indicate a need for age- and sex-specific prevention and for differing interventions according to geographic region. Burden of disease studies yield comprehensive population health surveillance data and are a useful aid to decision-making in health policy.

Redistributing ill-defined causes of death - a case study from the BURDEN 2020-project in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The cause of death statistics in Germany include a relatively high share (26% in 2017) of ill-defined deaths (IDD). To make use of the cause of death statistics for Burden of Disease calculations we redistribute those IDD to valid causes of death. METHODS: The process of proportional redistribution is described in detail. It makes use of the distribution of the valid ICD-codes in the cause of death data. We use examples of stroke, diabetes, and heart failure to illustrate how IDD are reallocated. RESULTS: The largest increases in the number of deaths for both women and men were found for lower respiratory infections, diabetes mellitus, and stroke. The numbers of deaths for these causes more than doubled after redistribution. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive redistribution of IDD using the German cause of death statistics. Performing a redistribution is necessary for burden of disease analyses, otherwise there would be an underreporting of certain causes of death or large numbers of deaths coded to residual or unspecific codes.

Years of Life Lost to Death­A Comprehensive Analysis of Mortality in Germany Conducted as Part of the BURDEN 2020 Project

BACKGROUND: Knowing which diseases and causes of death account for most of the years of life lost (YLL) can help to better target appropriate prevention and intervention measures. The YLL in Germany for specific causes of death were estimated as part of the BURDEN 2020 project at the Robert Koch Institute. METHODS: Data from cause-of-death statistics were used for the analysis. ICD codes were grouped into causes of death categories at different levels of disaggregation. The YLL were estimated by combining each cause of death with the remaining life expectancy at the age of death. Deaths and YLL were compared by sex, age category, and regional distribution. RESULTS: Approximately 11.6 million years were estimated to be lost in Germany in 2017, of which 42.8% were lost by women and 57.2% by men. The largest number of YLL were due to (malignant) neoplasms (35.2%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (27.6%), gastrointestinal diseases (5.8%), and neurological diseases (5.7%). Deaths at younger ages had a greater impact on population health if expressed in YLL: the death share of persons under age 65 was 14.7%, but the years of life lost in this age group amounted to 38.3% of all YLL. The most common causes of death in this group include accidents, self-injury and violence, malignant neoplasms, and alcohol-related diseases. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of YLL is borne by young and middle-aged persons. These findings emphasize the need to introduce preventive strategies early in life to reduce the YLL at younger ages, as well as to prevent risk factors for diseases in older ages.

The COVID-19 Disease Burden in Germany in 2020­Years of Life Lost to Death and Disease Over the Course of the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presented major challenges to the health sector in 2020. The burden of disease arising from COVID-19 can be expressed as the number of years of life lost to disease or death. For example, death at age 40 involves a loss of far more years of life than death at age 80. METHODS: The disability-adjusted life years (DALY) lost to COVID-19 were calculated as the sum of the years of life lost through death (YLL) and the number of years lived with disability (YLD), on the basis of laboratory-confirmed notifiable cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany in 2020 (documented as of 18 January 2021). The methodology was based on that used in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Pre-existing diseases do not enter into the determination of YLL; rather, the residual life expectancy that is applied in this calculation corresponds to a mean age-specific level of morbidity. RESULTS: 305 641 years of life were lost to COVID-19 in Germany in 2020. The percentage of DALY lost by persons under 70 was 34.8% in men and 21.0% in women. 99.3% of the COVID-19 disease burden was accounted for by death (YLL). The daily average years of life lost due to death was lower for COVID-19 than for the major non-communicable diseases. Persons who died of COVID-19 lost a mean of 9.6 years of life; those who were under 70 when they died lost a mean of 25.2 years of life. Men lost more years of life than women (11.0 vs. 8.1 years). CONCLUSION: The effects of COVID-19 on public health can be expressed through the burden of disease indicators. This method yields additional information that should be put to use early in the course of future outbreaks.

Prevalence of back and neck pain in Germany. Results from the BURDEN 2020 Burden of Disease Study.

Back and neck pain are widespread and can significantly reduce quality of life. A cross-sectional telephone survey (N=5,009) was carried out between October 2019 and March 2020 to gain a valid estimate of the prevalence of back and neck pain among adults in Germany. In addition to the frequency and intensity of back and neck pain, the study collected information about quality of life and comorbidity. The findings showed that 61.3% of respondents reported back pain in the last twelve months. Lower back pain was reported about twice as often as upper back pain, with 15.5% of respondents stating that they experienced chronic back pain. 45.7% reported neck pain, and 15.6% of respondents have experienced lower and upper back pain in addition to neck pain in the past year. Women are affected by all types of pain more often than men. About half of the respondents categorise their back or neck pain as moderate; older respondents report significantly more pain episodes per month than younger respondents. The results described here provide a comprehensive picture of the population-related limitations associated with back and neck pain and are used within the framework of the BURDEN 2020 study to quantify key indicators of burden of disease calculation.

Reflections on key methodological decisions in national burden of disease assessments.

BACKGROUND: Summary measures of population health are increasingly used in different public health reporting systems for setting priorities for health care and social service delivery and planning. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are one of the most commonly used health gap summary measures in the field of public health and have become the key metric for quantifying burden of disease (BoD). BoD methodology is, however, complex and highly data demanding, requiring a substantial capacity to apply, which has led to major disparities across researchers and nations in their resources to perform themselves BoD studies and interpret the soundness of available estimates produced by the Global Burden of Disease Study. METHODS: BoD researchers from the COST Action European Burden of Disease network reflect on the most important methodological choices to be made when estimating DALYs. The paper provides an overview of eleven methodological decisions and challenges drawing on the experiences of countries working with BoD methodology in their own national studies. Each of these steps are briefly described and, where appropriate, some examples are provided from different BoD studies across the world. RESULTS: In this review article we have identified some of the key methodological choices and challenges that are important to understand when calculating BoD metrics. We have provided examples from different BoD studies that have developed their own strategies in data usage and implementation of statistical methods in the production of BoD estimates. CONCLUSIONS: With the increase in national BoD studies developing their own strategies in data usage and implementation of statistical methods in the production of BoD estimates, there is a pressing need for equitable capacity building on the one hand, and harmonization of methods on the other hand. In response to these issues, several BoD networks have emerged in the European region that bring together expertise across different domains and professional backgrounds. An intensive exchange in the experience of the researchers in the different countries will enable the understanding of the methods and the interpretation of the results from the local authorities who can effectively integrate the BoD estimates in public health policies, intervention and prevention programs.

Corrigendum: Migraine and tension-type headache in Germany. Prevalence and disease severity from the BURDEN 2020 Burden of Disease Study.

[This corrects the article on p. 2-24 in vol. 5.].

Migraine and tension-type headache in Germany. Prevalence and disease severity from the BURDEN 2020 Burden of Disease Study.

Headache disorders are widespread among women and men in Germany and are primarily associated with restrictions on quality of life. The two most common types of headache disorders are migraine and tension-type headache. In order to gain valid estimates of the prevalence of these conditions, a cross-sectional telephone-based survey was conducted among adults in Germany (N=5,009) between October 2019 and March 2020. The frequency, duration, the characteristics and comorbidities associated with headache were measured using the diagnostic criteria defined in the International Classification of Headache Disorders. 57.5% of women and 44.4% of men in Germany stated that they had had a headache in the last twelve months. 14.8% of women and 6.0% of men meet all of the diagnostic criteria for migraine. Tension-type headache affects 10.3% of women and 6.5% of men. Migraine and tension-type headache are predominantly found among people of working age and steadily decrease with age. Migraine is often accompanied by comorbidities such as depressive symptoms and anxiety disorders. People affected by headache disorders tend to receive very little professional medical care, with only a minority seeking treatment within a year. These results provide a comprehensive picture of the population-related impact of headache disorders and are used in the BURDEN 2020 study to quantify key indicators for burden of disease assessment.

Interventions to Increase the Reachability of Migrants in Germany With Health Interview Surveys: Mixed-Mode Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Germany is a popular destination for immigrants, and migration has increased in recent years. It is therefore important to collect reliable data on migrants' health. The Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany, has launched the Improving Health Monitoring in Migrant Populations (IMIRA) project to sustainably integrate migrant populations into health monitoring in Germany. OBJECTIVE: One of IMIRA's objectives is to implement a feasibility study (the IMIRA survey) that focuses on testing various interventions to increase the reachability of migrants with health interview surveys. Possible causes of nonresponse should be identified so as to increase participation in future surveys. METHODS: The survey target populations were Turkish, Polish, Romanian, Syrian, and Croatian migrants, who represent the biggest migrant groups living in Germany. We used probability sampling, using data from the registration offices in 2 states (Berlin and Brandenburg); we randomly selected 9068 persons by nationality in 7 sample points. We applied age (3 categories: 18-44, 45-64, and ≥65 years) and sex strata. Modes and methods used to test their usability were culturally sensitive materials, online questionnaires, telephone interviews, personal contact, and personal interviews, using multilingual materials and interviewers. To evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, we used an intervention group (group A) and a control group (group B). There were also focus groups with the interviewers to get more information about the participants' motivation. We used the European Health Interview Survey, with additional instruments on religious affiliation, experience of discrimination, and subjective social status. We evaluated results according to their final contact result (disposition code). RESULTS: We collected data from January to May 2018 in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany. The survey had an overall response rate of 15.88% (1190/7494). However, final disposition codes varied greatly with regard to citizenship. In addition to the quantitative results, interviewers reported in the focus groups a "feeling of connectedness" to the participants due to the multilingual interventions. The interviewers were particularly positive about the home visits, because "if you are standing at the front door, you will be let in for sure." CONCLUSIONS: The IMIRA survey appraised the usability of mixed-mode or mixed-method approaches among migrant groups with a probability sample in 2 German states. When conducting the survey, we were confronted with issues regarding the translation of the questionnaire, as well as the validity of some instruments in the survey languages. A major result was that personal face-to-face contact was the most effective intervention to recruit our participants. We will implement the findings in the upcoming health monitoring study at the Robert Koch Institute.