↓ Skip to main content

Perinatal health outcomes and care among asylum seekers and refugees: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
210 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
556 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perinatal health outcomes and care among asylum seekers and refugees: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1064-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Heslehurst, Heather Brown, Augustina Pemu, Hayley Coleman, Judith Rankin

Abstract

Global 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. Twelve 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. Among 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. This 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 review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42017073315 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 556 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 556 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 85 15%
Student > Bachelor 68 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 9%
Researcher 37 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 5%
Other 79 14%
Unknown 209 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 92 17%
Social Sciences 48 9%
Psychology 28 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 1%
Other 47 8%
Unknown 227 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#757,884
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#533
of 4,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,392
of 342,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#19
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.