Dataset Information

Effects of non-health-targeted policies on migrant health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Government policies can strongly influence migrants' health. Using a Health in All Policies approach, we systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of public policies outside of the health-care system on migrant health.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from Jan 1, 2000, to Sept 1, 2017, for quantitative studies comparing the health effects of non-health-targeted public policies on migrants with those on a relevant comparison population. We searched for articles written in English, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. Qualitative studies and grey literature were excluded. We evaluated policy effects by migration stage (entry, integration, and exit) and by health outcome using narrative synthesis (all included studies) and random-effects meta-analysis (all studies whose results were amenable to statistical pooling). We summarised meta-analysis outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD, 95% CI) or odds ratio (OR, 95% CI). To assess certainty, we created tables containing a summary of the findings according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Our study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017076104.

Findings

We identified 43 243 potentially eligible records. 46 articles were narratively synthesised and 19 contributed to the meta-analysis. All studies were published in high-income countries and examined policies of entry (nine articles) and integration (37 articles). Restrictive entry policies (eg, temporary visa status, detention) were associated with poor mental health (SMD 0·44, 95% CI 0·13-0·75; I²=92·1%). In the integration phase, restrictive policies in general, and specifically regarding welfare eligibility and documentation requirements, were found to increase odds of poor self-rated health (OR 1·67, 95% CI 1·35-1·98; I²=82·0%) and mortality (1·38, 1·10-1·65; I²=98·9%). Restricted eligibility for welfare support decreased the odds of general health-care service use (0·92, 0·85-0·98; I²=0·0%), but did not reduce public health insurance coverage (0·89, 0·71-1·07; I²=99·4%), nor markedly affect proportions of people without health insurance (1·06, 0·90-1·21; I²=54·9%).

Interpretation

Restrictive entry and integration policies are linked to poor migrant health outcomes in high-income countries. Efforts to improve the health of migrants would benefit from adopting a Health in All Policies perspective.

Funding

Swedish Council for Health, Working Life, and Social Research; UK Medical Research Council; Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.

SUBMITTER: Juarez SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6418177 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, there are more than 150 million international migrant workers-individuals who are employed outside of their country of origin-comprising the largest international migrant group. A substantial number of migrants work in hazardous and exploitative environments, where they might be at considerable risk of injury and ill health. However, little data on occupational health outcomes of migrant workers exist, with which to inform global policy making and delivery of health services.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid Global Health, and PsychINFO databases for primary research published between Jan 1, 2008, and Jan 24, 2018, reporting occupational health outcomes among international migrant workers (defined as individuals who are or have been employed outside their country of origin), without language or geographical restrictions. We excluded studies containing mixed cohorts of migrants and native workers in which migrant data could not be disaggregated, and studies that did not explicitly report migrant status. The main outcome was prevalence of occupational health outcomes (defined as any injury, mortality, or physical or psychiatric morbidity due to an individual's work or workplace environment) among international migrant workers. Summary estimates were calculated using random-effects models. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099465.FindingsOf the 1218 studies identified by our search, 36 studies were included in our systematic review, and 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The systematic review included occupational health outcomes for 12 168 international migrant workers employed in 13 countries and territories, mostly employed in unskilled manual labour. Migrant workers originated from 25 low-income and middle-income countries, and worked in the following sectors: agriculture; domestic, retail, and service sectors; construction and trade; and manufacturing and processing. Migrant workers had various psychiatric and physical morbidities, and workplace accidents and injuries were relatively common. In the meta-analysis, among 7260 international migrant workers, the pooled prevalence of having at least one occupational morbidity was 47% (95% CI 29-64; I2=99·70%). Among 3890 migrant workers, the prevalence of having at least one injury or accident, including falls from heights, fractures and dislocations, ocular injuries, and cuts was 22% (7-37; I2=99·35%).InterpretationInternational migrant workers are at considerable risk of work-related ill health and injury, and their health needs are critically overlooked in research and policy. Governments, policy makers, and businesses must enforce and improve occupational health and safety measures, which should be accompanied by accessible, affordable, and appropriate health care and insurance coverage to meet the care needs of this important working population.FundingWellcome Trust.

Project description:Previous literature has shown that migrant workers manifested higher common mental issues (especially depressive symptom) compared to local workers due to stressors such as financial constraint and lack of access to healthcare. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current body of evidence for the prevalence of depression and anxiety among migrant workers as well as exploring the risk factors and the availability of social support for migrant workers. Seven electronic databases, grey literature and Google Scholar were searched for studies from 2015 to 2021 related to mental health, social support and migrant workers. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI). Study heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics. Random effects meta-analysis results were presented given heterogeneity among studies. The search returned 27 articles and only seven studies were included in meta-analysis, involving 44 365 migrant workers in 17 different countries. The overall prevalence of depression and anxiety among migrant workers was 38.99% (95% CI = 0.27, 0.51) and 27.31% (95% CI = 0.06, 0.58), respectively. Factors such as age, biological (health issue, family history of psychiatric disorder), individual (poor coping skills), occupational (workplace psychosocial stressors, poor working condition, salary and benefits issue, abuse), environmental (limited access towards healthcare, duration of residence, living condition) and social factor (limited social support) were associated with a mental health outcome in migrant workers. The availability of social support for migrant workers was mainly concentrated in emotional type of support. A high prevalence of depression and anxiety was found among migrant workers across the globe. This finding warrants a collective effort by different parties in providing assistance for migrant workers to promote their mental well-being.

Project description:Policy Points Social policies might not only improve economic well-being, but also health. Health policy experts have therefore advocated for investments in social policies both to improve population health and potentially reduce health system costs. Since the 1960s, a large number of social policies have been experimentally evaluated in the United States. Some of these experiments include health outcomes, providing a unique opportunity to inform evidence-based policymaking. Our comprehensive review and meta-analysis of these experiments find suggestive evidence of health benefits associated with investments in early life, income support, and health insurance interventions. However, most studies were underpowered to detect health outcomes.ContextInsurers and health care providers are investing heavily in nonmedical social interventions in an effort to improve health and potentially reduce health care costs.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all known randomized social experiments in the United States that included health outcomes. We reviewed 5,880 papers, reports, and data sources, ultimately including 61 publications from 38 randomized social experiments. After synthesizing the main findings narratively, we conducted risk of bias analyses, power analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses where possible. Finally, we used multivariate regressions to determine which study characteristics were associated with statistically significant improvements in health outcomes.FindingsThe risk of bias was low in 17 studies, moderate in 11, and high in 33. Of the 451 parameter estimates reported, 77% were underpowered to detect health outcomes. Among adequately powered parameters, 49% demonstrated a significant health improvement, 44% had no effect on health, and 7% were associated with significant worsening of health. In meta-analyses, early life and education interventions were associated with a reduction in smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.99). Income maintenance and health insurance interventions were associated with significant improvements in self-rated health (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36, and OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10-1.73, respectively), whereas some welfare-to-work interventions had a negative impact on self-rated health (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90). Housing and neighborhood trials had no effect on the outcomes included in the meta-analyses. A positive effect of the trial on its primary socioeconomic outcome was associated with higher odds of reporting health improvements. We found evidence of publication bias for studies with null findings.ConclusionsEarly life, income, and health insurance interventions have the potential to improve health. However, many of the included studies were underpowered to detect health effects and were at high or moderate risk of bias. Future social policy experiments should be better designed to measure the association between interventions and health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundTobacco smoking and smoke exposure during pregnancy and childhood cause considerable childhood morbidity and mortality. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether implementation of WHO's recommended tobacco control policies (MPOWER) was of benefit to perinatal and child health.MethodsWe searched 19 electronic databases, hand-searched references and citations, and consulted experts to identify studies assessing the association between implementation of MPOWER policies and child health. We did not apply any language restrictions, and searched the full time period available for each database, up to June 22, 2017. Our primary outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, preterm birth, hospital attendance for asthma exacerbations, and hospital attendance for respiratory tract infections. Where possible and appropriate, we combined data from different studies in random-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015023448.FindingsWe identified 41 eligible studies (24 from North America, 16 from Europe, and one from China) that assessed combinations of the following MPOWER policies: smoke-free legislation (n=35), tobacco taxation (n=11), and smoking cessation services (n=3). Risk of bias was low in 23 studies, moderate in 16, and high in two. Implementation of smoke-free legislation was associated with reductions in rates of preterm birth (-3·77% [95% CI -6·37 to -1·16]; ten studies, 27 530 183 individuals), rates of hospital attendance for asthma exacerbations (-9·83% [-16·62 to -3·04]; five studies, 684 826 events), and rates of hospital attendance for all respiratory tract infections (-3·45% [-4·64 to -2·25]; two studies, 1 681 020 events) and for lower respiratory tract infections (-18·48% [-32·79 to -4·17]; three studies, 887 414 events). Associations appeared to be stronger when comprehensive smoke-free laws were implemented than when partial smoke-free laws were implemented. Among two studies assessing the association between smoke-free legislation and perinatal mortality, one showed significant reductions in stillbirth and neonatal mortality but did not report the overall effect on perinatal mortality, while the other showed no change in perinatal mortality. Meta-analysis of studies on other MPOWER policies was not possible; all four studies on increasing tobacco taxation and one of two on offering disadvantaged pregnant women help to quit smoking that reported on our primary outcomes had positive findings. Assessment of publication bias was only possible for studies assessing the association between smoke-free legislation and preterm birth, showing some degree of bias.InterpretationSmoke-free legislation is associated with substantial benefits to child health. The majority of studies on other MPOWER policies also indicated a positive effect. These findings provide strong support for implementation of such policies comprehensively across the world.FundingChief Scientist Office Scotland, Farr Institute, Netherlands Lung Foundation, Erasmus MC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Potential adverse health effects of Asian dust exposure have been reported, but systematic reviews and quantitative syntheses are lacking. OBJECTIVE:We reviewed epidemiologic studies that assessed the risk of mortality, hospital admissions, and symptoms/dysfunction associated with exposure to Asian dust. METHODS:We performed a systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies that reported the association between Asian dust exposure and human health outcomes. We conducted separate meta-analyses using a random-effects model for mortality and hospital admissions for a specific health outcome and assessed pooled estimates for each lag when at least three studies were available for a specific lag. RESULTS:We identified 89 studies that met our inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimates (percentage changes) of mortality from circulatory and respiratory causes for Asian dust days vs. non-Asian dust days were 2.33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76, 3.93] increase at lag 0 and 3.99% (95% CI: 0.08, 8.06) increase at lag 3, respectively. The increased risk for hospital admissions for respiratory disease, asthma, and pneumonia peaked at lag 3 by 8.85% (95% CI: 0.80, 17.55), 14.55% (95% CI: 6.74, 22.94), and 8.51% (95% CI: 2.89, 14.44), respectively. Seven of 12 studies reported reduced peak expiratory flow, and 16 of 21 studies reported increased respiratory symptoms associated with Asian dust exposure. There were substantial variations between the studies in definitions of Asian dust, study designs, model specifications, and confounder controls. DISCUSSION:We found evidence of increased mortality and hospital admissions for circulatory and respiratory events. However, the number of studies included in the meta-analysis was not large and further evidences are merited to strengthen our conclusions. Standardized protocols for epidemiological studies would facilitate interstudy comparisons. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5312.