Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37250071›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

A scoping review of maternal health among resettled refugee women in the United States.

Sarah Yeo, Yuae Park, Deborah Jean McClelland, John Ehiri, Kacey Ernst, Priscilla Magrath, Halimatou Alaofè

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sarah YeoDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Yuae ParkDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Deborah Jean McClellandArizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
John EhiriDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Kacey ErnstEpidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Priscilla MagrathDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Halimatou AlaofèDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Globally, refugee women continue to face higher maternity-related risks from preventable complications during pregnancy and childbirth, partly due to high health care costs, unfamiliarity with the healthcare system, language barriers, and discrimination. Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of literature that evaluates the available evidence in the US. This scoping review delineated the body of literature on maternal health among refugee women resettled in the US in order to identify knowledge gaps in the literature and highlight future research priorities and directions for maternal health promotion. Methods: Electronic databases were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception through July 2021. We included all peer-reviewed study designs; qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method if they reported on refugee women's perinatal health experiences and outcomes in the US. Results: A total of 2,288 records were identified, with 29 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Refugee women tend to initiate prenatal care late and have fewer prenatal care visits compared to women born in the US. Some of them were reluctant to get obstetric interventions such as labor induction and cesarean delivery. Despite numerous risk factors, refugee women had generally better maternal health outcomes. Studies have also highlighted the importance of health care providers' cultural competency and sensitivity, as well as the potential role of community health workers as a bridge between refugee women and health care providers. Conclusions: The scoping review emphasizes the need for early prenatal care initiation and more frequent prenatal care visits among refugee women. Furthermore, more needs to be done to mitigate resistance to obstetric interventions and mistrust. The mechanism by which healthy migrant effects occur could be better understood, allowing protective factors to be maintained throughout the resettlement and acculturation process. The scoping review identifies critical gaps in the literature, such as the underrepresentation of different ethnic groups of refugee women in refugee maternal studies in the US. Since this invisibility may indicate unspoken and unaddressed needs, more attention should be paid to underrepresented and understudied groups of refugee women in order to achieve health equity for all.

Indexed as

Maternal HealthRefugeesCultural CompetencyDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyUnited Stateshost countrymaternal carematernal healthperinatal careprenatal carerefugeerefugee healthUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37250071
PMCPMC10214470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.