SynthesisBMJ open2023
Evaluation of the US detention standards to protect the health and dignity of migrants: a systematic review of national health standards.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The right to sight: a call for ophthalmic care standards in carceral and detention centre settings.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe US government detains hundreds of thousands of migrants across a network of facilities each year. This research aims to evaluate the completeness of standards across US detention agencies to protect the health and dignity of migrants.
designFive documents from three US agencies were examined in a systematic review: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; 3), Customs and Border Protection (CBP; 1) and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR; 1). Standards within five public health categories (health, hygiene, shelter, food and nutrition, protection) were extracted from each document and coded by subcategory and area. Areas were classified as critical, essential or supportive. Standards were measured for specificity, measurability, attainability, relevancy and timeliness (SMART), resulting in a sufficiency score (0%-100%). Average sufficiency scores were calculated for areas and agencies.
results711 standards were extracted within 5 categories, 12 subcategories and 56 areas. 284 standards of the 711 standards were included in multiple (2-7) areas, resulting in 1173 standards counted as many times as each was included. On average, 85.4% of standards were specific, 87.1% measurable, 96.6% attainable and 74.9% time-bound. All standards were considered relevant. CBP standards were the least sufficient across all other SMART components, when compared with ICE and ORR.
conclusionsThere are disparate detention standards based on agencies' mandates and type of facility contracts. Migrants should be ensured of their public health rights and services in all spaces they occupy, and for any length of time regardless of who manages the facility. As long as detention remains a policy, the US should develop comprehensive, consistent and complementary standards for all detention facilities or pursue alternatives to detention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.