The sexual and reproductive healthcare challenges when dealing with female migrants and refugees in low and middle-income countries (a qualitative evidence synthesis).

Migrants and refugees face unprecedented inequalities in accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) in developed and developing countries. Most attention has focused on the rich world perspective, while there are huge numbers of migrants and refugees moving towards less developed countries. This article synthesizes the barriers to proper SRH care from low and middle-income countries perspective. We performed a systematic review of articles containing primary source qualitative and quantitative studies with thick qualitative descriptions. Articles from various databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, HINARI, and Google Scholar, published between 2012 and 2022 were included. Because the context differed, we excluded articles dealing with migrants and refugees from low- and middle-income countries living in high-income countries. To select articles, a preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) was used. The articles' quality was assessed using the standard QASP checklist. We used a socio-ecological model to investigate barriers at various levels, and thematic analysis was used to identify the strongest themes at each level of the model. This synthesis is registered under PROSPERO number CRD42022341460. We selected fifteen articles from a total of 985 for the final analysis. The results show that despite the diversity of the participants' homes and countries of origin, their experiences using SRH services were quite similar. Most female migrants and refugees claimed to have encountered discrimination from service providers, and linguistic and cultural obstacles played a significant role in their experiences. In nations lacking universal healthcare coverage, the cost of care was a barrier to the use of SRH services. Other main obstacles to using SRH services were a lack of knowledge about these programs, worries about privacy, inadequate communication, stigma in the community, and gender-related power imbalances. To enhance the use of SRH by female migrants and refugees, it is vital to provide person-centered care and involve husbands, parents, in-laws, and communities in SRH coproduction. Training on cultural competency, compassion, and respect must be provided to healthcare personnel. Increasing financial access for migrant and refugee healthcare is crucial, as is meeting their basic requirements.

Darebo TD ，Spigt M ，Teklewold B ，Badacho AS ，Mayer N ，Teklewold M ... -  《BMC PUBLIC HEALTH》

Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Health literacy can be defined as a person's knowledge, motivation and competence in four steps of health-related information processing - accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information. Individuals with experience of migration may encounter difficulties with or barriers to these steps that may, in turn, lead to poorer health outcomes than those of the general population. Moreover, women and men have different health challenges and needs and may respond differently to interventions aimed at improving health literacy. In this review, we use 'gender' rather than 'sex' to discuss differences between men and women because gender is a broad term referring to roles, identities, behaviours and relationships associated with being male or female. The overall objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was to explore and explain probable gender differences in the health literacy of migrants. The findings of this QES can provide a comprehensive understanding of the role that any gender differences can play in the development, delivery and effectiveness of interventions for improving the health literacy of female and male migrants. This qualitative evidence synthesis had the following specific objectives: - to explore whether there are any gender differences in the health literacy of migrants; - to identify factors that may underlie any gender differences in the four steps of health information processing (access, understand, appraise, and apply); - to explore and explain gender differences found - or not found - in the effectiveness of health literacy interventions assessed in the effectiveness review that is linked to this QES (Baumeister 2023); - to explain - through synthesising findings from Baumeister 2023 and this QES - to what extent gender- and migration-specific factors may play a role in the development and delivery of health literacy interventions. We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase until May 2021. We searched trial registries and conference proceedings. We conducted extensive handsearching and contacted study authors to identify all relevant studies. There were no restrictions in our search in terms of gender, ethnicity or geography. We included qualitative trial-sibling studies directly associated with the interventions identified in the effectiveness review that we undertook in parallel with this QES. The studies involved adults who were first-generation migrants (i.e. had a direct migration experience) and used qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. We extracted data into a form that we developed specifically for this review. We assessed methodological limitations in the studies using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Qualitative Studies) checklist. The data synthesis approach that we adopted was based on "best fit" framework synthesis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our level of confidence in each finding. We followed PRISMA-E guidelines to report our findings regarding equity. We included 27 qualitative trial-sibling studies directly associated with 24 interventions assessed in a linked effectiveness review (Baumeister 2023), which we undertook in parallel with this QES. Eleven studies included only women, one included only men and 15 included both. Most studies were conducted in the USA or Canada and primarily included people of Latino/Latina and Hispanic origin. The second most common origin was Asian (e.g. Chinese, Korean, Punjabi). Some studies lacked information about participant recruitment and consideration of ethical aspects. Reflexivity was lacking: only one study contained a reflection on the relationship between the researcher and participants and its impact on the research. None of the studies addressed our primary objective. Only three studies provided findings on gender aspects; these studies were conducted with women only. Below, we present findings from these studies, with our level of confidence in the evidence added in brackets. Accessing health information We found that 'migrant women of Korean and Afghan origin preferred access to a female doctor' (moderate confidence) for personal reasons or due to cultural norms. Our second finding was that 'Afghan migrant women considered their husbands to be gatekeepers', as women of an Afghan background stressed that, in their culture, the men were the heads of the household and the decision-makers, including in personal health matters that affected their wives (low confidence). Our third finding was 'Afghan migrant women reported limited English proficiency' (moderate confidence), which impeded their access to health information and services. Understanding health information Female migrants of Afghan background reported limited writing and reading abilities, which we termed 'Afghan migrant women reported low literacy levels' (moderate confidence). Applying health information Women of Afghan and Mexican backgrounds stated that the 'women's role in the community' (moderate confidence) prevented them from maintaining their own health and making themselves a priority; this impeded applying health information. Appraising health information We did not find any evidence related to this step in health information processing. Other findings In the full text of this QES, we report on migration-specific factors in health literacy and additional aspects related to health literacy in general, as well as how participants assessed the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in our linked effectiveness review. Moreover, we synthesised qualitative data with findings of the linked effectiveness review to report on gender- and migration-specific aspects that need to be taken into account in the development, design and delivery of health literacy interventions. The question of whether gender differences exist in the health literacy of migrants cannot be fully answered in this qualitative evidence synthesis. Gender-specific findings were presented in only three of the 27 included studies. These findings represented only Afghan, Mexican and Korean women's views and were probably culturally-specific. We were unable to explore male migrants' perceived health literacy due to the notable lack of research involving migrant men. Research on male migrants' perceived health literacy and their health-related challenges is needed, as well as more research on potential gender roles and differences in the context of migration. Moreover, there is a need for more research in different countries and healthcare systems to create a more comprehensive picture of health literacy in the context of migration.

Aldin A ，Baumeister PhD A ，Chakraverty D ，Monsef I ，Noyes J ，Kalbe E ，Woopen C ，Skoetz N ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Qualitative evidence synthesis informing our understanding of people's perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication.

Health communication is an area where changing technologies, particularly digital technologies, have a growing role to play in delivering and exchanging health information between individuals, communities, health systems, and governments.[1] Such innovation has the potential to strengthen health systems and services, with substantial investments in digital health already taking place, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Communication using mobile phones is an important way of contacting individual people and the public more generally to deliver and exchange health information. Such technologies are used increasingly in this capacity, but poor planning and short‐term projects may be limiting their potential for health improvement. The assumption that mobile devices will solve problems that other forms of communication have not is also prevalent. In this context, understanding people's views and experiences may lead to firmer knowledge on which to build better programs. A qualitative evidence synthesis by Heather Ames and colleagues on clients' perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication focuses on a particular type of messaging – targeted messages from health services delivered to particular group(s) via mobile devices, in this case looking at communicating with pregnant women and parents of young children, and with adults and teenagers about sexual health and family planning.[2] These areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) are where important gains have been made worldwide, but there remains room for improvement. Ames and colleagues sought to examine and understand people's perceptions and experiences of using digital targeted client communication. This might include communication in different formats and with a range of purposes related to RMNCAH – for example, receiving text message reminders to take medicines (e.g. HIV medicines) or go to appointments (such as childhood vaccination appointments), or phone calls offering information or education (such as about breastfeeding or childhood illnesses), support (e.g. providing encouragement to change behaviours) or advice (such as advising about local healthcare services). These communication strategies have the potential to improve health outcomes by communicating with people or by supporting behaviour change. However, changing people's health behaviours to a significant and meaningful degree is notoriously challenging and seldom very effective across the board. There are a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions aiming to change behaviours of both patients and providers, with the overall objective of improving health outcomes – many of which show little or no average effects across groups of people.[3] This evidence synthesis is therefore important as it may help to understand why communicating with people around their health might (or might not) change behaviours and improve consequent health outcomes. By examining the experiences and perspectives of those receiving the interventions, this qualitative evidence synthesis allows us to better understand the interventions' acceptability and usefulness, barriers to their uptake, and factors to be considered when planning implementation. The synthesis looked at 35 studies from countries around the world, focussing on communication related to RMNCAH. Of the 35 studies, 16 were from high‐income countries, mainly the United States, and 19 were from low‐ or middle‐income countries, mainly African countries. Many of the studies presented hypothetical scenarios. The findings from the synthesis are mixed and give us a more nuanced picture of the role of targeted digital communication. People receiving targeted digital communications from health services often liked and valued these contacts, feeling supported and connected by them. However, some also reported problems with the use of these technologies, which may represent barriers to their use. These included practical or technical barriers like poor network or Internet access, as well as cost, language, technical literacy, reading or issues around confidentiality, especially where personal health conditions were involved. Access to mobile phones may also be a barrier, particularly for women and adolescents who may have to share or borrow a phone or who have access controlled by others. In such situations it may be difficult to receive communications or to maintain privacy of content. The synthesis also shows that people's experiences of these interventions are influenced by factors such as the timing of messages, their frequency and content, and their trust in the sender. Identifying key features of such communications by the people who use them might therefore help to inform future choices about how and when such messaging is used. The authors used their knowledge from 25 separate findings to list ten implications for practice. This section of the review is hugely valuable, making a practical contribution to assist governments and public health agencies wishing to develop or improve their delivery of digital health. The implications serve as a list of points to consider, including issues of access (seven different aspects are considered), privacy and confidentiality, reliability, credibility and trust, and responsiveness to the needs and preferences of users. In this way, qualitative evidence is building a picture of how to better communicate with people about health. For example, an earlier 2017 Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames, Glenton and Lewin on parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination provides ample evidence that may help program managers to deliver or plan communication interventions in ways that are responsive to and acceptable to parents.[4] The qualitative synthesis method, therefore, puts a spotlight on how people's experiences of health and health care in the context of their lives may lead to the design of better interventions, as well as to experimental studies which take more account of the diversity that exists in people's attitudes and decision‐making experiences.[5] In the case of this qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames and colleagues, the method pulled together a substantial body of research (35 data‐rich studies were sampled from 48 studies identified, with the high‐to‐moderate confidence in the evidence for 13 of the synthesized findings). The evidence from this review can inform the development of interventions, and the design of trials and their implementation. While waiting for such new trials or trial evidence on effects to emerge, decision‐makers can build their programs on the highly informative base developed by this review. This qualitative evidence synthesis, alongside other reviews, has informed development by the World Health Organization of its first guideline for using digital technologies for health systems strengthening,[1, 6] part of a comprehensive program of work to better understand and support implementation of such new technologies.

Ryan R ，Hill S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Healthcare workers sometimes develop their own informal solutions to deliver services. One such solution is to use their personal mobile phones or other mobile devices in ways that are unregulated by their workplace. This can help them carry out their work when their workplace lacks functional formal communication and information systems, but it can also lead to new challenges. To explore the views, experiences, and practices of healthcare workers, managers and other professionals working in healthcare services regarding their informal, innovative uses of mobile devices to support their work. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus on 11 August 2022 for studies published since 2008 in any language. We carried out citation searches and contacted study authors to clarify published information and seek unpublished data. We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative component. We included studies that explored healthcare workers' views, experiences, and practices regarding mobile phones and other mobile devices, and that included data about healthcare workers' informal use of these devices for work purposes. We extracted data using an extraction form designed for this synthesis, assessed methodological limitations using predefined criteria, and used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesise the data. We used the 'street-level bureaucrat' concept to apply a conceptual lens to our findings and prepare a line of argument that links these findings. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings and the line-of-argument statements. We collaborated with relevant stakeholders when defining the review scope, interpreting the findings, and developing implications for practice. We included 30 studies in the review, published between 2013 and 2022. The studies were from high-, middle- and low-income countries and covered a range of healthcare settings and healthcare worker cadres. Most described mobile phone use as opposed to other mobile devices, such as tablets. We have moderate to high confidence in the statements in the following line of argument. The healthcare workers in this review, like other 'street-level bureaucrats', face a gap between what is expected of them and the resources available to them. To plug this gap, healthcare workers develop their own strategies, including using their own mobile phones, data and airtime. They also use other personal resources, including their personal time when taking and making calls outside working hours, and their personal networks when contacting others for help and advice. In some settings, healthcare workers' personal phone use, although unregulated, has become a normal part of many work processes. Some healthcare workers therefore experience pressure or expectations from colleagues and managers to use their personal phones. Some also feel driven to use their phones at work and at home because of feelings of obligation towards their patients and colleagues. At best, healthcare workers' use of their personal phones, time and networks helps humanise healthcare. It allows healthcare workers to be more flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of the patient. It can give patients access to individual healthcare workers rather than generic systems and can help patients keep their sensitive information out of the formal system. It also allows healthcare workers to communicate with each other in more personalised, socially appropriate ways than formal systems allow. All of this can strengthen healthcare workers' relationships with community members and colleagues. However, these informal approaches can also replicate existing social hierarchies and deepen existing inequities among healthcare workers. Personal phone use costs healthcare workers money. This is a particular problem for lower-level healthcare workers and healthcare workers in low-income settings as they are likely to be paid less and may have less access to work phones or compensation. Out-of-hours use may also be more of a burden for lower-level healthcare workers, as they may find it harder to ignore calls when they are at home. Healthcare workers with poor access to electricity and the internet are less able to use informal mobile phone solutions, while healthcare workers who lack skills and training in how to appraise unendorsed online information are likely to struggle to identify trustworthy information. Informal digital channels can help healthcare workers expand their networks. But healthcare workers who rely on personal networks to seek help and advice are at a disadvantage if these networks are weak. Healthcare workers' use of their personal resources can also lead to problems for patients and can benefit some patients more than others. For instance, when healthcare workers store and share patient information on their personal phones, the confidentiality of this information may be broken. In addition, healthcare workers may decide to use their personal resources on some types of patients, but not others. Healthcare workers sometimes describe using their personal phones and their personal time and networks to help patients and clients whom they assess as being particularly in need. These decisions are likely to reflect their own values and ideas, for instance about social equity and patient 'worthiness'. But these may not necessarily reflect the goals, ideals and regulations of the formal healthcare system. Finally, informal mobile phone use plugs gaps in the system but can also weaken the system. The storing and sharing of information on personal phones and through informal channels can represent a 'shadow IT' (information technology) system where information about patient flow, logistics, etc., is not recorded in the formal system. Healthcare workers may also be more distracted at work, for instance, by calls from colleagues and family members or by social media use. Such challenges may be particularly difficult for weak healthcare systems. By finding their own informal solutions to workplace challenges, healthcare workers can be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of patients, colleagues and themselves. But these solutions also have several drawbacks. Efforts to strengthen formal health systems should consider how to retain the benefits of informal solutions and reduce their negative effects.

Glenton C ，Paulsen E ，Agarwal S ，Gopinathan U ，Johansen M ，Kyaddondo D ，Munabi-Babigumira S ，Nabukenya J ，Nakityo I ，Namaganda R ，Namitala J ，Neumark T ，Nsangi A ，Pakenham-Walsh NM ，Rashidian A ，Royston G ，Sewankambo N ，Tamrat T ，Lewin S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》