ArticleBMJ public health2025
The impact of immigrant-specific policies and programmes on maternal, perinatal and paediatric outcomes: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to synthesise the current literature to better understand the scope and impacts of immigration policies and programmes on the health and development of immigrant mothers and their children. Methods: Six databases (Scopus, Embase, Medline, Global Health, CINAHL and Public Health Database) were systematically searched from inception to October 2022 using keywords and subject headings for immigration, policy/programme and maternal/perinatal/paediatric outcomes. We analysed policies by the services or processes they affected, whether they restricted or supported immigrants' access or eligibility, and by maternal/perinatal or paediatric outcomes, using a narrative synthesis. Results: Out of 10 105 identified studies, 65 met our inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were published from 2000 onwards and evaluated outcomes over periods that ranged from 1980 to 2019. Most studies focused on immigrants in the USA (n=54, 83.1%), and many employed quasi-experimental methods (n=42, 64.6%). Commonly evaluated policies or programmes were related to health insurance and access to other public benefits (n=22, 33.8%), followed by those related to naturalisation or legalisation (n=8, 12.3%), and the selection, reception or integration of immigrants (n=8, 12.3%). Overall, paediatric outcomes (n=40, 61.5%) were examined more than maternal or perinatal outcomes (n=29, 44.6%). Few studies explored postpartum care (n=2, 3.1%), childhood vaccination (n=1, 1.5%) or mental health outcomes (n=5, 7.7%). Restrictive immigration policies were not associated with birth outcomes but negatively impacted prenatal care and healthcare utilisation among vulnerable subgroups of immigrant women. Supportive policies were associated with improvements in prenatal care among immigrant mothers, an increase in health insurance coverage among children, and positive impacts on child educational outcomes. Conclusions: Research on the impacts of immigrant-specific policies and programmes on maternal and child outcomes remains limited, primarily focusing on the immigrant receiving context in the USA. More research from other countries is needed to better understand policy impacts on a global scale. Future studies should consider a broader range of indicators that include postpartum outcomes, childhood vaccination and mental health.
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.