Dataset Information

Occupational health outcomes among international migrant workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Globally, 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.

Methods

For 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.

Findings

Of 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%).

Interpretation

International 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.

Funding

Wellcome Trust.

SUBMITTER: Hargreaves S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6565984 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMigration status is a key determinant of health, but health outcomes among migrant children and young people (CYP), that is, those aged under 18 years, are poorly understood. A 'healthy migrant' effect has been demonstrated among adults, but evidence for the same effect in CYP is lacking. No large studies or reviews exist reporting comprehensive or holistic health outcomes among migrant CYP. We aim to identify and synthesise original quantitative research on health of migrant CYP to explore the relations between migration status and health outcomes.Methods and analysisA search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane and grey literature sites will be undertaken for any original quantitative research on health outcomes of migrant CYP from 01 January 2000 onwards. Outcomes addressed: mortality, communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, nutritional status, mental health, disability, vaccine coverage, and accidental and non-accidental injuries (including assault and abuse). Search results will be screened and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment tool will be used to assess study quality. If feasible, depending on study availability data heterogeneity (explored using I2 statistic), results will be pooled for meta-analysis. If sufficient data are available, a priori defined subgroup analyses will be undertaken. A narrative quantitative synthesis will be presented, taking account of study quality and assessed risk of bias.The anticipated search completion date is 01 June 2021 with write-up completed by 01 April 2022.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval will not be sought as we will be accessing data already in the public domain. This review will be submitted for publication in a high-impact journal and presented at international conferences. The results of this work will be shared with groups of migrant children as part of an ongoing engagement project.Prospero registration numberCRD42020166305.

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:Background: There are approximately two billion workers in the informal economy globally. Compared to workers in the formal economy, these workers are often marginalised with minimal or no benefits from occupational health and safety regulations, labour laws, social protection and/or health care. Thus, informal economy workers may have higher occupational health risks compared to their formal counterparts. Our objective was to systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on relative differences (or inequalities) in health services use and health outcomes among informal economy workers, compared with formal economy workers. Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE in March 2020 for studies published in 1999-2020. The eligible population was informal economy workers. The comparator was formal economy workers. The eligible outcomes were general and occupational health services use, fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries, HIV, tuberculosis, musculoskeletal disorders, depression, noise-induced hearing loss and respiratory infections. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias with RoB-SPEO, and assessed quality of evidence with GRADE. Inverse variance meta-analyses were conducted with random effects. Results: Twelve studies with 1,637,297 participants from seven countries in four WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific) were included. Compared with formal economy workers, informal economy workers were found to be less likely to use any health services (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.85-0.94, four studies, 195,667 participants, I2 89%, low quality of evidence) and more likely to have depression (odds ratio 5.02, 95% confidence interval 2.72-9.27, three studies, 26,260 participants, I2 87%, low quality of evidence). We are very uncertain about the other outcomes (very-low quality of evidence). Conclusion: Informal economy workers may be less likely than formal economy workers to use any health services and more likely to have depression. The evidence is uncertain for relative differences in the other eligible outcomes. Further research is warranted to strengthen the current body of evidence and needed to improve population health and reduce health inequalities among workers.

Project description:BackgroundGovernment 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsWe 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%).InterpretationRestrictive 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.FundingSwedish Council for Health, Working Life, and Social Research; UK Medical Research Council; Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.