Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 29 references

Comorbidity Network Analysis Reveals Diagnostic Disparities Between Austrian and Non-Austrian Inpatients: A Population-Wide Cohort Study

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In matched Austrian hospital data, non-Austrian inpatients show systematically fewer significant disease co-occurrence links than nationals, which the authors read as incomplete diagnostic assessment driven by access barriers rather than lo

desk verdict Solid nationwide matched comorbidity-network comparison with a clear 70/30 descriptive result; the access-barrier reading is plausible but not isolated from residual selection and coding depth. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04296 v1 pith:CCO7VTAH submitted 2026-07-05 physics.med-ph physics.soc-phstat.OT

Elma Dervic , Andrea Vismara , Remah Dahdoul , Marion Aichberger , Nilufar Mossaheb This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.soc-phstat.OT
keywords comorbiditynetworksmigrationhealthcareaccessinpatientdiagnosesmultimorbidityICD-10Austriahealthdisparities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether well-known barriers to care for international migrants show up not only in who gets admitted, but in how diseases are recorded together once people are in hospital. Using nationwide Austrian inpatient records (2015–2019), the authors match about 273,000 Austrian nationals to the same number of non-Austrian patients by age, sex, and first-admission time, then build comorbidity networks: maps of which ICD-10 diagnoses co-occur more often than chance. After matching, metabolic and cardiovascular diagnoses become more common among non-Austrians while depression stays more common among Austrians; yet among disease pairs that differ significantly between groups, roughly 70% of the stronger co-occurrences sit in the Austrian network and only 30% in the non-Austrian one. Sex-specific clusters stand out—alcohol-related mental-health links in Austrian men versus acute somatic presentations in non-Austrian men, and a depression–somatoform–back-pain cluster in non-Austrian women. The authors argue that the thinner non-Austrian networks are best read as structural access barriers (language, culture, crisis-oriented admissions) that leave comorbidities under-documented, while allowing that a healthy-migrant contribution cannot be ruled out. A sympathetic reader cares because this reframes “fewer comorbidities” from a health advantage into a possible signal of incomplete care that health systems can act on.

What carries the argument

Comorbidity networks built from Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel odds ratios (OR > 1.5, p < 0.05, ≥100 co-occurrences) on ICD-10 three-digit codes, with group differences scored by a standardized difference D of log odds ratios (in pooled standard-error units) and binned by strength; this object turns prevalence lists into comparable co-occurrence structure.

What would settle it

If outpatient, primary-care, or multi-source electronic health records with language, length-of-stay, and socioeconomic covariates showed the same 70/30 imbalance in co-diagnosis density between matched nationals and migrants—or if richer diagnostic workups in migrant-focused clinics erased the gap without changing true disease rates—the access-barrier reading of the thinner inpatient networks would be strongly supported or overturned accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a 1:1 age-, sex-, and admission-time-matched inpatient cohort of 272,779 Austrian and 272,779 non-Austrian patients, comorbidity-network analysis finds that among disease pairs with statistically significant group differences, 70% show stronger co-occurrence in Austrians and 30% in non-Austrians. The authors interpret this imbalance, together with lower admission but higher readmission patterns known from related work, as evidence that structural access barriers prevent comprehensive diagnostic assessment in migrants rather than as evidence of lower true disease burden, while noting that the healthy migrant effect cannot be excluded.

Load-bearing premise

That fewer recorded inpatient comorbidity links after age-sex-time matching mainly mean incomplete hospital diagnosis from access barriers, rather than residual selection of who reaches hospital, true disease differences, coding habits, or the healthy migrant effect—none of which the data directly measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Health systems in high-migration settings should treat thinner recorded multimorbidity in migrant inpatients as a possible under-diagnosis signal, not as lower need.
  • Care pathways can prioritize earlier detection of the sex-specific clusters the networks flag: alcohol-linked acute somatic presentations in non-Austrian men and depression–somatoform–musculoskeletal clusters in non-Austrian women.
  • Culturally and linguistically adapted diagnostic routines may increase comprehensive secondary assessment and reduce crisis-oriented, incomplete admissions.
  • Budget-impact style evaluation of earlier multimorbidity identification, already sketched for conditions such as SLE, becomes a natural next policy tool for migrant high-risk profiles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the access-barrier reading is right, the same network thinning should appear in other universal-coverage countries with large foreign-born shares whenever inpatient coding depth depends on communication and stay length.
  • Linking these inpatient networks to primary-care and pharmacy data would separate under-recording from true multimorbidity and test whether the healthy-migrant contribution shrinks with years since arrival.
  • The sex-specific clusters suggest occupational and social exposures (physically demanding work, delayed mental-health access) as targets for prevention trials that the paper describes but does not design.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This population-wide cohort study compares comorbidity networks of Austrian nationals and non-Austrian migrants using ~13 million Austrian hospital admissions (2015–2019). After 1:1 matching on age, sex, and month/year of first admission (272,779 per group), the authors report higher metabolic/cardiovascular prevalence in non-Austrians and higher depression in Austrians. Using CMH-stratified odds ratios and a standardized difference D of log-ORs, they find that among disease pairs with significant between-group differences, 70% show stronger co-occurrence in Austrians and 30% in non-Austrians, with sex-specific clusters (alcohol–mental health in Austrian males; acute somatic alcohol-related presentations in non-Austrian males; recurrent depression–somatoform–dorsalgia in non-Austrian females). They interpret the sparser non-Austrian comorbidity structure as primarily reflecting structural access barriers that limit comprehensive diagnostic assessment, while noting a possible healthy-migrant contribution.

Significance. If the descriptive network contrasts hold, this is a useful first population-scale comorbidity-network comparison of migrant versus native inpatients in a high-migration EU setting, with clear matching, explicit OR filters, and clinically actionable sex-specific clusters. The nationwide scale, matched design, and interactive network visualization are genuine strengths. The policy relevance for culturally sensitive multimorbidity pathways is real. The load-bearing interpretive step—from fewer significant D-links to incomplete diagnostic assessment due to access barriers—is not yet tightly supported by the reported quantities, so the paper’s impact depends on tightening that link or tempering the claim.

major comments (4)
  1. Abstract and Discussion: the central interpretive claim treats the 70%/30% split of significant D-links as evidence that non-Austrians receive less comprehensive diagnostic assessment from access barriers (language, culture, crisis-oriented admission). That split is a count of edges that pass the authors’ filters (OR>1.5, p<0.05, ≥100 co-occurrences) and then differ between groups. Matched non-Austrians still have fewer diagnoses per stay (1.77 vs 1.91) and shorter cumulative stays (Table 2). Without reporting, for each network, edge density, mean/median OR among eligible pairs, and the fraction of candidate pairs that meet the co-occurrence threshold before the between-group test, the 70/30 figure cannot separate incomplete recording from true co-occurrence differences, residual healthy-migrant selection into hospital, or coding-depth differences. Please add these within-network diagnos
  2. Methods, Comorbidity Network Construction: CMH strata are defined as 8 age groups × 2 sexes × 2 time frames (2015–2016 and 2017–2018) = 32 strata, while the dataset covers 2015–2019. Clarify how 2019 admissions enter the OR estimation (excluded, pooled into 2017–2018, or a third interval). If 2019 is dropped from the network construction, state that explicitly and report sensitivity with a 2019 stratum or a three-interval design; otherwise the matched cohort and network edges are not fully aligned with the stated study window.
  3. Statistical Test for Differences / Results: D is tested against a normal null with mean zero and binned into five significance levels, but no multiple-testing correction (or false-discovery control) is described across the large number of disease pairs and the sex-stratified tests. Given that the headline 70/30 result and the sex-specific clusters (e.g., F33–F45, F33–M54, F10–F17) rest on which links are called significant, either apply FDR/Bonferroni (or a permutation null that preserves degree/diagnosis burden) and re-report the split and top links, or justify why uncorrected PD thresholds are sufficient and show that the 70/30 balance is stable under stricter cutoffs.
  4. Discussion, Strengths and Limitations: the healthy-migrant effect and restriction to hospitalized patients are acknowledged but not quantified. Because the interpretive claim is about access barriers versus lower true multimorbidity, please (i) report sensitivity restricted to patients with ≥2 admissions or ≥k diagnoses (where diagnostic opportunity is more comparable), and (ii) if nationality subgroups or length-of-residence proxies exist in the data, show whether the sparser network is concentrated in recent arrivals. If those data are unavailable, state that the design cannot separate healthy-migrant selection from access barriers and soften causal language in the Abstract accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. Tables 1–3 appear twice in the manuscript (once in Results and again under a separate “Tables” section). Remove the duplication and keep a single numbered set.
  2. Figure 1–4 captions and body text refer to green = higher in non-Austrians and pink = higher in Austrians; ensure colorblind-safe palettes and that grey “too small” cells are distinguishable in print.
  3. Code Availability: “available upon request” is weak for a methods-heavy network paper. Deposit analysis code and a de-identified edge list (or synthetic example) in a public repository with a DOI.
  4. Introduction / Research in context: several self-citations to prior work on the same Austrian hospital corpus are appropriate for continuity, but briefly state what is new relative to the utilization/readmission paper (arXiv:2408.16317) so the comorbidity-network contribution is unambiguous.
  5. Methods: “diagnoses level 3” and “1,080 in total” ICD-10 3-digit codes—state the exact inclusion rule (all chapters vs. restricted set) and whether O-codes (obstetric) are retained in the matched female networks, given their large prevalence imbalance.
  6. Typographical/consistency: “13.t9%” in the Introduction; “adequat treatment”; arXiv date stamp “5 Jul 2026” looks like a placeholder—correct before submission.
  7. Figure 5 interactive URL is useful; also provide a static high-resolution panel of the top D links by sex so the print version stands alone.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Observational OR comparison yields an independent 70/30 count of significant D-links; only minor self-citation supplies interpretive context for access barriers, without forcing the numerical result by construction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Discussion, paragraph linking utilization to comorbidity differences]
    "Previously, one study provided evidence that non-Austrians use health care systems differently than Austrians, in that they have lower hospital admission rates but higher readmission rates 14. Lower hospital admission rates, higher readmission rates and significantly fewer comorbidity differences in non-Austrians - regardless of specific nationalities - might be related to variable access barriers within secondary health systems."

    The interpretive claim that fewer significant comorbidity links reflect access barriers (rather than lower burden) rests in part on the authors’ own prior utilization paper [14] on the identical hospital corpus. The citation is not machine-checked or externally falsified here; it supplies the narrative bridge from the new 70/30 count to the access-barrier conclusion. The numerical result itself remains independently computed, so the circularity is mild and non-definitional.

full rationale

The paper constructs comorbidity networks from contingency-table odds ratios (CMH-stratified by age/sex/time) on a matched inpatient cohort, then counts the direction of standardized log-OR differences D that survive fixed filters (OR>1.5, p<0.05, n>=100). That 70/30 split is a descriptive tally of the data, not a quantity defined in terms of itself or fitted then re-predicted. Self-citations ([14] utilization patterns, [19–20,23] prior network methods and data release on the same Austrian corpus) supply background and code-level continuity but do not define the between-group D statistic or the 70/30 share; the healthy-migrant caveat is explicitly left open. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known closed-form result appears. Residual selection/coding-depth concerns affect causal interpretation of the count, not circularity of the derivation. Score 2 reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation that frames the access-barrier reading.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central descriptive result rests on standard biostatistical tools and domain choices for network edge inclusion and significance of between-group differences. No new physical entities are invented. Load-bearing free choices are the OR/p/count cutoffs and the D magnitude bins; load-bearing domain assumptions are that inpatient ICD co-coding after demographic matching is a fair comparator of comorbidity structure and that nationality is a usable migrant proxy. The access-barrier interpretation is an additional domain assumption not identified by the design.

free parameters (4)
  • OR inclusion threshold
    Edges kept only if OR > 1.5 (with p < 0.05 and ≥100 co-occurrences); choice affects which links enter the networks and thus which differences can be counted in the 70/30 split.
  • Minimum co-occurrence count
    At least 100 patients with both diagnoses required; hand-chosen reliability filter that drops rare pairs.
  • D significance bins
    Not significant / weak / substantial / strong / very strong defined by D cutoffs 2,3,4,5 with corresponding PD ranges; bins shape how differences are reported though the 70/30 uses significance of D.
  • Matching and stratification scheme
    1:1 match on age band, sex, month-year of first admission; CMH strata of 8 age × 2 sex × 2 two-year periods—design choices that define the comparison population and adjusted ORs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ICD-10 level-3 inpatient primary/secondary codes adequately represent co-occurring disease for network construction.
    Methods section builds all edges from hospital diagnosis codes only; outpatient and undiagnosed disease are unobserved.
  • standard math Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel stratified ORs with the stated filters yield comparable comorbidity edges across nationality groups.
    Standard stratified association method cited via Kuritz; used for every disease pair.
  • domain assumption Nationality (Austrian vs non-Austrian), after excluding multiple nationalities, is a valid proxy for migrant vs native inpatient populations.
    Data section; no country-of-birth, length of stay, or refugee status in the main contrast.
  • ad hoc to paper Fewer significant comorbidity links after matching primarily reflect incomplete diagnostic assessment from access barriers rather than lower true multimorbidity or healthy-migrant selection alone.
    Abstract and Discussion interpretation; paper admits healthy-migrant contribution cannot be excluded and lacks direct access measures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comorbidity Network Analysis Reveals Diagnostic Disparities Between Austrian and Non-Austrian Inpatients: A Population-Wide Cohort Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCO7VTAH

@misc{pith2026260704296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comorbidity Network Analysis Reveals Diagnostic Disparities Between Austrian and Non-Austrian Inpatients: A Population-Wide Cohort Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCO7VTAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04296}
}
read the original abstract

International migrants face well-documented barriers to healthcare access, yet the extent to which these barriers shape patterns of disease co-occurrence remains poorly understood. Drawing on a nationwide dataset of approximately 13 million hospital admissions from around 4 million individuals in Austria (2015-2019), we constructed and compared comorbidity networks between Austrian nationals and non-Austrian migrants, matched 1:1 by age, sex, and time of first hospital admission (272,779 per group). Following matching, metabolic and cardiovascular diagnoses, including type 2 diabetes and myocardial infarction, were more common among non-Austrians, while depression was more common among Austrians. Comorbidity network analysis showed that among all disease pairs that differed significantly between groups, 70% showed stronger co-occurrence in Austrian patients and 30% in non-Austrian patients. Distinct sex-specific patterns appeared: Austrian males showed stronger associations between alcohol use disorder and mental health diagnoses, whereas non-Austrian males more frequently presented with acute somatic conditions. Among non-Austrian women, a pronounced cluster of recurrent depression, somatoform disorders, and dorsalgia was observed. We interpret the disproportionately fewer comorbidity links observed in non-Austrians not as evidence of lower disease burden, but as a likely reflection of structural access barriers, including language differences, cultural factors, and crisis-oriented admission patterns, that prevent comprehensive diagnostic assessment, though a contribution from the healthy migrant effect cannot be excluded. These findings stress the need for culturally aware care strategies and earlier identification of high-risk multimorbidity profiles in migrant populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Log-scale prevalence ratios across ICD-10 chapters comparing non-Austrian and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Log-scale ratios of disease prevalence across ICD-10 chapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Log-scale ratios of disease prevalence across ICD-10 chapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Log-scale ratios of disease prevalence across ICD-10 chapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comorbidity networks highlighting diagnoses that differ significantly between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of significant comorbidity differences a) nationality b) across ICD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Log-scale prevalence ratios across ICD-10 chapters comparing non-Austrian and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Log-scale ratios of disease prevalence across ICD-10 chapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Log-scale ratios of disease prevalence across ICD-10 chapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Log-scale ratios of disease prevalence across ICD-10 chapter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comorbidity networks highlighting diagnoses that differ significantly between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of significant comorbidity differences a) nationality b) across ICD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    URLhttps://www.who

    World Health Organization.World Report on the Health of Refugees and Mi- grants(World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022). URLhttps://www.who. int/publications/i/item/9789240054462

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Lebano, A.et al.Migrants’ and refugees’ health status and healthcare in europe: a scoping literature review.BMC Public Health20, 1–22 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Hamed, S., Bradby, H., Ahlberg, B. M. & Thapar-Bj¨ orkert, S. Racism in health- care: a scoping review.BMC public health22, 988 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    & Gottlieb, N

    Pattillo, M., Stieglitz, S., Angoumis, K. & Gottlieb, N. Racism against racialized migrants in healthcare in europe: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health22, 201 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    & Saatci, E

    Topal, K., Eser, E., Sanberk, I., Bayliss, E. & Saatci, E. Challenges in access to health services and its impact on quality of life: a randomised population-based survey within turkish speaking immigrants in london.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes10, 11 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Acquadro-Pacera, G.et al.Exploring differences in the utilization of the emer- gency department between migrant and non-migrant populations: a systematic review.BMC Public Health24, 963 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    H., Mills, T., Simpson, S

    Christian, A. H., Mills, T., Simpson, S. L. & Mosca, L. Quality of cardiovascular disease preventive care and physician/practice characteristics.Journal of general internal medicine21, 231–237 (2006). 24

    2006

  8. [8]

    M., Clark, R

    Benkert, R., Peters, R. M., Clark, R. & Keves-Foster, K. Effects of perceived racism, cultural mistrust and trust in providers on satisfaction with care.Journal of the National Medical Association98, 1532 (2006)

    2006

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    J., Ding, Y., Hargreaves, M., Van Ryn, M

    Burgess, D. J., Ding, Y., Hargreaves, M., Van Ryn, M. & Phelan, S. The associ- ation between perceived discrimination and underutilization of needed medical and mental health care in a multi-ethnic community sample.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved19, 894–911 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    & Linos, A

    Gil-Salmer´ on, A., Katsas, K., Riza, E., Karnaki, P. & Linos, A. Access to health- care for migrant patients in Europe: healthcare discrimination and translation services.International journal of environmental research and public health18, 7901 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    & Krasnik, A

    Nørredam, M. & Krasnik, A. Migrants’ access to health services.Migration and health in the European Union67–78 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Bischoff, A.et al.Language barriers between nurses and asylum seekers: their impact on symptom reporting and referral.Social science & medicine57, 503– 512 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    E.et al.The escalating global burden of serious health-related suf- fering: projections to 2060 by world regions, age groups, and health conditions

    Sleeman, K. E.et al.The escalating global burden of serious health-related suf- fering: projections to 2060 by world regions, age groups, and health conditions. The Lancet Global Health7, e883–e892 (2019)

  6. [14]

    A population-wide retrospective cohort study.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16317(2024)

    Dervi´ c, E.et al.Healthcare utilization patterns among migrant populations: Increased readmissions suggest poorer access. A population-wide retrospective cohort study.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16317(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Eu population diversity by citizenship and country of birth

    Eurostat. Eu population diversity by citizenship and country of birth. Statistics Explained (2025). URLhttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=EU_population_diversity_by_citizenship_ and_country_of_birth. Data extracted in February 2025; accessed 2026-01-05

    2025

  8. [16]

    & Landesmann, M

    Kohlenberger, J., Buber-Ennser, I., Rengs, B., Leitner, S. & Landesmann, M. Barriers to health care access and service utilization of refugees in austria: evi- dence from a cross-sectional survey.Health Policy123, 833–839 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    V., Khunti, K

    Chudasama, Y. V., Khunti, K. & Davies, M. J. Clustering of comorbidities. Future Healthcare Journal8, e224–e229 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Azubuike, C. D. & Alawode, O. A. Delayed healthcare due to cost among adults with multimorbidity in the United States. InHealthcare, vol. 12, 2271 (MDPI, 2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Haug, N.et al.High-risk multimorbidity patterns on the road to cardiovascular mortality.BMC Medicine18, 1–12 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Dervi´ c, E.et al.Unraveling cradle-to-grave disease trajectories from multilayer comorbidity networks.Npj Digital Medicine7, 56 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    International Classification of Diseases (ICD).https://www.who.int/ standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases, Last accessed on 2024-02-01. 25

    2024

  14. [22]

    Kuritz, S. J. A general overview of mantel-haenszel methods: applications and recent developments.Annu Rev Public Health9, 123–160 (1988)

    1988

  15. [23]

    & Klimek, P

    Dervi´ c, E., Ledebur, K., Thurner, S. & Klimek, P. Comorbidity networks from population-wide health data: Aggregated data of 8.9 m hospital patients (1997– 2014).Scientific Data12, 215 (2025)

    1997

  16. [24]

    E.et al.Evaluation of the economic benefit of earlier systemic lupus erythematosus (sle) diagnosis using a multivariate assay panel (map).ACR Open Rheumatology2, 629–639 (2020)

    Clarke, A. E.et al.Evaluation of the economic benefit of earlier systemic lupus erythematosus (sle) diagnosis using a multivariate assay panel (map).ACR Open Rheumatology2, 629–639 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Alcohol consumption in the European Union: Fact sheet

    World Health Organization. Alcohol consumption in the European Union: Fact sheet. Tech. Rep., World Health Organization (2024). URLhttps://www.who.int/docs/librariesprovider2/default-document- library/24-10-16_eu_factsheetonalcoholconsumption.pdf. Accessed: 2026-03-18

    2024

  18. [26]

    URLhttps://iris.who.int/handle/10665/377960

    World Health Organization.Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health and Treatment of Substance Use Disorders(World Health Organization, Geneva, 2024). URLhttps://iris.who.int/handle/10665/377960

    2024

  19. [27]

    Statistisches jahrbuch migration & integration 2025: Zahlen, daten, indikatoren

    Statistik Austria. Statistisches jahrbuch migration & integration 2025: Zahlen, daten, indikatoren. Tech. Rep., Statistik Austria, Wien (2025). URLhttps://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/publications/Migration- Integration_2025.pdf. Kofinanziert durch den Asyl-, Migrations- und Int...

    2025

  20. [28]

    & Tverdostup, M

    Jestl, S. & Tverdostup, M. Labour market entry and integration of refugees in Austria.International Journal of Manpower1–39 (2026)

    2026

  21. [29]

    & Beˇ si´ c, A

    Aigner, P. & Beˇ si´ c, A. Left to their own devices: Refugees’ labour-market integration challenges in Austria during the Covid-19 pandemic. InAnxieties of migration and integration in turbulent times, 77–93 (Springer, 2023). 26

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.