Dataset Information

WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The circumstances of people living in refugee camps means that they have distinct medical care requirements. Our objective is to describe clinical guidance in published WHO guidelines that refer to people living in refugee camps; and how evidence and context are used and reported in making recommendations. DESIGN:Systematic review and analysis of WHO guidelines approved by the organisation's quality oversight body and published between 2007 and 2018. We sought for key terms related to camps and humanitarian settings, and identified text that included guidance. We compared this to Mèdecins Sans Frontièrs (MSF) guidelines. RESULTS:No WHO guideline published in the last 10 years focused exclusively on clinical guidance for healthcare in camp settings. Seven guidelines contained guidance about camps; three made recommendations for camps-but only two used formal evidence summaries. We did not find any structured consideration of the situation in camps used in the decision-making process. We examined seven WHO guidelines and six chapters within guidelines that concerned humanitarian settings: none of these documents contained recommendations based on formal evidence summaries for camp settings. One of the eight MSF guidelines was devoted to clinical care in refugees and the authors had clearly linked the health problems and recommendations to the setting, but this guideline is now >20 years old. CONCLUSIONS:There is an absence of up-to-date, evidence-based medical treatment guidelines from WHO and MSF that comprehensively address the clinical needs for people living in camps; and there is no common framework to help guideline groups formulate recommendations in these settings. WHO may wish to consider context of special populations more formally in the evidence to decision-making approach for clinical guidelines relevant to primary care.

SUBMITTER: Blundell H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6731884 | biostudies-other | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review.

Blundell Harriet H Milligan Rachael R Norris Susan L SL Garner Paul P

BMJ open 20190904 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>The circumstances of people living in refugee camps means that they have distinct medical care requirements. Our objective is to describe clinical guidance in published WHO guidelines that refer to people living in refugee camps; and how evidence and context are used and reported in making recommendations.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and analysis of WHO guidelines approved by the organisation's quality oversight body and published between 2007 and 2018. We sought for key t ...[more]

PMID: 31488468

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tuberculosis (TB) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality among refugees and migrant populations. These groups are among the most vulnerable populations at increased risk of developing TB. However, there is no systematic review that attempts to summarize TB among refugees and migrant populations. This study aimed to summarize evidence on the magnitude of TB among refugees and migrant populations. The findings of this review will provide evidence to improve TB prevention and control policies in refugees and migrants in refugee camps and in migrant-hosting countries. A systematic search was done to retrieve the articles published from 2014 to 2021 in English language from electronic databases. Key searching terms were used in both free text and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH). Articles which had reported the magnitude of TB among refugees and migrant populations were included in the review. We assessed the risk of bias, and quality of the included studies with a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Included studies which had reported incidence or prevalence data were eligible for data synthesis. The results were shown as summary tables. In the present review, more than 3 million refugees and migrants were screened for TB with the data collection period between 1991 and 2017 among the included studies. The incidence and prevalence of TB ranged from 19 to 754 cases per 100,000 population and 18.7 to 535 cases per 100,000 population respectively among the included studies. The current findings show that the most reported countries of origin in TB cases among refugees and migrants were from Asia and Africa; and the incidence and prevalence of TB among refugees and migrant populations is higher than in the host countries. This implies the need to implement and improve TB prevention and control in refugees and migrant populations globally. Trial registration: The protocol of this review was registered on PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) with ID number, CRD42020157619.

Project description:ImportanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis is, to date, the first and most comprehensive to focus on the incidence of nonaffective psychoses among refugees.ObjectiveTo assess the relative risk (RR) of incidence of nonaffective psychosis in refugees compared with the RR in the native population and nonrefugee migrants.Data sourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for studies from January 1, 1977, to March 8, 2018, with no language restrictions (PROSPERO registration No. CRD42018106740).Study selectionStudies conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were selected by multiple independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were (1) observation of refugee history in participants, (2) assessment of effect size and spread, (3) adjustment for sex, (4) definition of nonaffective psychosis according to standardized operationalized criteria, and (5) comparators were either nonrefugee migrants or the native population. Studies observing ethnic background only, with no explicit definition of refugee status, were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality and validity as well as risk of bias of included studies. A random-effects model was created to pool the effect sizes of included studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome, formulated before data collection, was the pooled RR in refugees compared with the nonrefugee population.ResultsOf the 4358 screened articles, 9 studies (0.2%) involving 540 000 refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were included in the analyses. The RR for nonaffective psychoses in refugees was 1.43 (95% CI, 1.00-2.05; I2 = 96.3%) compared with nonrefugee migrants. Analyses that were restricted to studies with low risk of bias had an RR of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; I2 = 0.0%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants, 2.41 (95% CI, 1.51-3.85; I2 = 96.3%) for refugees compared with the native population, and 1.92 (95% CI, 1.02-3.62; I2 = 97.0%) for nonrefugee migrants compared with the native group. Exclusion of studies that defined refugee status not individually but only by country of origin resulted in an RR of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.12-4.49; I2 = 96.8%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants and an RR of 3.26 (95% CI, 1.87-5.70; I2 = 97.6%) for refugees compared with the native group. In general, the RR of nonaffective psychosis was increased in refugees and nonrefugee migrants compared with the native population.Conclusions and relevanceRefugee experience appeared to be an independent risk factor in developing nonaffective psychosis among refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada. These findings suggest that applying the conclusions to non-Scandinavian countries should include a consideration of the characteristics of the native society and its specific interaction with the refugee population.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal migration is at an all-time high with implications for perinatal health. Migrant women, especially asylum seekers and refugees, represent a particularly vulnerable group. Understanding the impact on the perinatal health of women and offspring is an important prerequisite to improving care and outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the current evidence base on perinatal health outcomes and care among women with asylum seeker or refugee status.MethodsTwelve electronic database, reference list and citation searches (1 January 2007-July 2017) were carried out between June and July 2017. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews, published in the English language, were included if they reported perinatal health outcomes or care and clearly stated that they included asylum seekers or refugees. Screening for eligibility, data extraction, quality appraisal and evidence synthesis were carried out in duplicate. The results were summarised narratively.ResultsAmong 3415 records screened, 29 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Only one exclusively focussed on asylum seekers; the remaining reviews grouped asylum seekers and refugees with wider migrant populations. Perinatal outcomes were predominantly worse among migrant women, particularly mental health, maternal mortality, preterm birth and congenital anomalies. Access and use of care was obstructed by structural, organisational, social, personal and cultural barriers. Migrant women's experiences of care included negative communication, discrimination, poor relationships with health professionals, cultural clashes and negative experiences of clinical intervention. Additional data for asylum seekers and refugees demonstrated complex obstetric issues, sexual assault, offspring mortality, unwanted pregnancy, poverty, social isolation and experiences of racism, prejudice and stereotyping within perinatal healthcare.ConclusionsThis review identified adverse pregnancy outcomes among asylum seeker and refugee women, representing a double burden of inequality for one of the most globally vulnerable groups of women. Improvements in the provision of perinatal healthcare could reduce inequalities in adverse outcomes and improve women's experiences of care. Strategies to overcome barriers to accessing care require immediate attention. The systematic review evidence base is limited by combining heterogeneous migrant, asylum seeker and refugee populations, inconsistent use of definitions and limited data on some perinatal outcomes and risk factors. Future research needs to overcome these limitations to improve data quality and address inequalities.Systematic registrationSystematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42017073315 .

Project description:AimsDespite the magnitude and protracted nature of the Rohingya refugee situation, there is limited information on the culture, mental health and psychosocial wellbeing of this group. This paper, drawing on a report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the literature on mental health and psychosocial wellbeing of Rohingya refugees, including an examination of associated cultural factors. The ultimate objective is to assist humanitarian actors and agencies in providing culturally relevant Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) for Rohingya refugees displaced to Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search across multiple sources of information with reference to the contextual, social, economic, cultural, mental health and health-related factors amongst Rohingya refugees living in the Asia-Pacific and other regions. The search covered online databases of diverse disciplines (e.g. medicine, psychology, anthropology), grey literature, as well as unpublished reports from non-profit organisations and United Nations agencies published until 2018.ResultsThe legacy of prolonged exposure to conflict and persecution compounded by protracted conditions of deprivations and displacement is likely to increase the refugees' vulnerability to wide array of mental health problems including posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. High rates of sexual and gender-based violence, lack of privacy and safe spaces and limited access to integrated psychosocial and mental health support remain issues of concern within the emergency operation in Bangladesh. Another challenge is the limited understanding amongst the MHPSS personnel in Bangladesh and elsewhere of the language, culture and help-seeking behaviour of Rohingya refugees. While the Rohingya language has a considerable vocabulary for emotional and behavioural problems, there is limited correspondence between these Rohingya terms and western concepts of mental disorders. This hampers the provision of culturally sensitive and contextually relevant MHPSS services to these refugees.ConclusionsThe knowledge about the culture, context, migration history, idioms of distress, help-seeking behaviour and traditional healing methods, obtained from diverse sources can be applied in the design and delivery of culturally appropriate interventions. Attention to past exposure to traumatic events and losses need to be paired with attention for ongoing stressors and issues related to worries about the future. It is important to design MHPSS interventions in ways that mobilise the individual and collective strengths of Rohingya refugees and build on their resilience.

Dataset Information

WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review.

Publications

WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets