Current opinion in urology · 2026
Migration status and urologic health inequities: a scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goodarzi Kimia, Miszczyk Marcin, Karakiewicz Pierre I, Reis Leonardo O, Shariat Shahrokh F
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Migration is an increasingly important determinant of health and healthcare access. Migrants often face language barriers, socioeconomic vulnerability, administrative obstacles, and reduced access to preventive and specialist services. This review summarizes current evidence on migration-related inequities in urologic care.
RECENT FINDINGS: Available evidence suggests that migrant populations experience disparities across the continuum of urologic care, including screening, diagnostic work-up, access to specialist evaluation, treatment receipt, and follow-up. In urologic oncology, migrants are less likely to participate in screening programs and may present with more advanced disease. Structural barriers, language discordance, low health literacy, cultural beliefs, medical mistrust, and insurance or legal insecurity all contribute to delayed care. Similar inequities are seen in nonmalignant urologic conditions, including lower urinary tract symptoms, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, and nephrolithiasis, where symptoms are often underreported and undertreated.
SUMMARY: Migration is an important but under-studied determinant of inequity in urologic care. The current literature remains heterogeneous and often fails to distinguish between migration status and race or ethnicity. Future research should use standardized migration-related variables and focus on actionable strategies to improve equitable access, communication, early diagnosis, and high-quality treatment for migrant populations.
RECENT FINDINGS: Available evidence suggests that migrant populations experience disparities across the continuum of urologic care, including screening, diagnostic work-up, access to specialist evaluation, treatment receipt, and follow-up. In urologic oncology, migrants are less likely to participate in screening programs and may present with more advanced disease. Structural barriers, language discordance, low health literacy, cultural beliefs, medical mistrust, and insurance or legal insecurity all contribute to delayed care. Similar inequities are seen in nonmalignant urologic conditions, including lower urinary tract symptoms, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, and nephrolithiasis, where symptoms are often underreported and undertreated.
SUMMARY: Migration is an important but under-studied determinant of inequity in urologic care. The current literature remains heterogeneous and often fails to distinguish between migration status and race or ethnicity. Future research should use standardized migration-related variables and focus on actionable strategies to improve equitable access, communication, early diagnosis, and high-quality treatment for migrant populations.