ArticleMedicine2025
A bibliometric analysis of the study of health equity of migrants.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch on migrants has grown significantly over the past 20 years. However, systematic reviews and summaries of the health equity of migrants are lacking.
objectiveThis bibliometric analysis aims to reveal the knowledge structure, cooperation networks, and research frontiers in immigrant health equity for the first time, providing a framework and guidance for future studies.
methodsPublications related to health equity of migrants from 1993 to 2024 were collected from Scopus. The publications collected were restricted to certain categories (articles and reviews). VOSviewer and Citaspace were used to analyze the country/region, institution, research topic, keyword co-occurrence, and highly cited papers.
resultsFour hundred nine articles were included in this study. It was found that the field entered a period of rapid growth after 2013, with an average of 29.67 articles per year, and the research enthusiasm has continued to rise. Articles originated from 63 countries/regions and 160 institutions. The study found that in terms of international cooperation and output, the United States (US) (55.74%), Canada, the United Kingdom, and China are the main research forces, with the University of California, San Francisco ranking first in the number of published papers; the US-United Kingdom, US-Canada, and US-China have formed the strongest cooperation networks. This study also reveals its interdisciplinary research characteristics, covering multiple fields such as medicine (75.31%) and social sciences (23.72%), and forms 5 core research clusters: healthcare services and social determinants: focusing on the impact of healthcare resource accessibility and socioeconomic status on health equity; demographic differences: paying attention to health inequalities caused by factors such as age, gender, and race; family income and Asian health: revealing for the first time the unique impact of family income on the health of Asian immigrants. Highly cited literatures highlight political factors (such as policy discrimination), group inequalities (such as the "Latino health paradox"), and methodological differences as academic focus, providing a theoretical basis for policy-making.
conclusionsThe study confirms international and interdisciplinary trends. Future research should deepen multidisciplinary collaboration, explore group difference mechanisms, evaluate policies, strengthen international cooperation, use diverse methods, and support global immigrant health policy optimization.
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.