Abstract OP 26: Exclusion and Discrimination 4, B207 (FCSH), September 4, 2025, 16:00 - 17:00 Aims This study has two main objectives (1) to assess the prevalence, reasons, and determinants of perceived discrimination among migrants, and (2) to examine its associations with self-rated health, sexual health, healthcare utilization, and social integration. Methods We analyzed data from a 2018 survey on migrants’ sexual and reproductive health and rights, which included 1,740 migrants aged 16 and older. Descriptive and log-binomial regression analyses were used to estimate prevalence, as well as crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results About 36% of participants reported discrimination in Sweden, mainly due to ethnicity (62%) and religion (35%). Discrimination was common in public spaces (47%), schools (33%), and online (20%), workplaces (19%), public services (18%), residential areas (16%), and healthcare settings (10%). Higher discrimination was reported among migrant men (APR: 1.26, CI: 1.07–1.49), those from the Middle East (APR: 1.57, CI: 1.26–1.95), South Asia (APR: 1.61, CI: 1.27–2.04), with more than 12 years of education (APR: 1.33, CI: 1.10–1.60), non-heterosexuals (APR: 1.21, CI: 1.02–1.43), non-Christians (APR: 1.41, CI: 1.10–1.80, and those under economic stress (APR: 1.67, CI: 1.44–1.93). Older participants (46+) perceived less discrimination APR: 0.55, CI: 0.37–0.80) compared to younger participants (16–25 years). Discrimination was associated to poorer general (APR: 1.72, CI: 1.45–2.04), and sexual health (APR: 1.40, CI: 1.20–1.64), integration (APR: 1.25, CI: 1.14–1.37), and healthcare utilization (APR: 1.48, CI: 1.16–1.89). Conclusions This study shows that migrants in Sweden face significant perceived discrimination based on ethnicity and religion, which can negatively impact their health, healthcare use, and social integration. It calls for policies to address systemic discrimination, promote inclusion, and ensure equal access to healthcare and resources, especially for vulnerable groups facing higher discrimination and experiencing economic hardship.
Baroudi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: