Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327760›Full record

ArticleJournal of migration and health2024

Sexual and reproductive health and rights of migrant women attending primary care in England: A population-based cohort study of 1.2 million individuals of reproductive age (2009-2018).

Neha Pathak, Claire X Zhang, Yamina Boukari, Rachel Burns, Dee Menezes, Gregory Hugenholtz, Rebecca S French, Arturo Gonzalez-Izquierdo, Rohini Mathur, Spiros Denaxas and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of migration and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

13 authors.

Neha PathakInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Claire X ZhangInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Yamina BoukariInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Rachel BurnsInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Dee MenezesInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Gregory HugenholtzInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Rebecca S FrenchFaculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Arturo Gonzalez-IzquierdoInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Rohini MathurWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Spiros DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Andrew HaywardInclusion Health, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Pam SonnenbergInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, WC1E 6JB, UK.
Robert W AldridgeInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence on the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of migrants is lacking globally. We describe SRHR healthcare resource use and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) prescriptions for migrant versus non-migrant women attending primary care in England (2009-2018). Methods: This population-based observational cohort study, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, included females living in England aged 15 to 49. Migration was defined using a validated codelist. Rates per 100 person years at risk (pyar) and adjusted rate ratios (RRs) were measured in migrants versus non-migrants for consultations related to all-causes, six exemplar SRHR outcomes, and LARC prescriptions. Proportions of migrants and non-migrants ever prescribed LARC were calculated. Findings: There were 25,112,116 consultations across 1,246,353 eligible individuals. 98,214 (7.9 %) individuals were migrants. All-cause consultation rates were lower in migrants versus non-migrants (509 vs 583/100pyar;RR 0.9;95 %CI 0.9-0.9), as were consultations rates for emergency contraception (RR 0.7;95 %CI 0.7-0.7) and cervical screening (RR 0.96;95 %CI 0.95-0.97). Higher rates of consultations were found in migrants for abortion (RR 1.2;95 %CI 1.1-1.2) and management of fertility problems (RR 1.39;95 %CI 1.08-1.79). No significant difference was observed for chlamydia testing and domestic violence. Of 1,205,258 individuals eligible for contraception, the proportion of non-migrants ever prescribed LARC (12.2 %;135,047/1,107,894) was almost double that of migrants (6.91 %;6,728/97,364). Higher copper intrauterine devices prescription rates were found in migrants (RR 1.53;95 %CI 1.45-1.61), whilst hormonal LARC rates were lower for migrants: levonorgestrel intrauterine device (RR 0.63;95 %CI 0.60-0.66), subdermal implant (RR 0.72;95 %CI 0.69-0.75), and progesterone-only injection (RR 0.35;95 %CI 0.34-0.36). Interpretation: Healthcare resource use differs between migrant and non-migrant women of reproductive age. Opportunities identified for tailored interventions include access to primary care, LARCs, emergency contraception and cervical screening. An inclusive approach to examining health needs is essential to actualise sexual and reproductive health as a human right.

Indexed as

Electronic health recordsMigrantMigrationMigration healthPrimary careReproductive healthSexual and reproductive health and rightsSexual healthSRHR

Identifiers

PMID38327760
PMCPMC10847991

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.