BackgroundFirst generation migrants are reportedly at higher risk of mental ill-health compared to the settled population. This paper systematically reviews and synthesizes all reviews on the mental health of first generation migrants in order to appraise the risk factors for, and explain differences in, the mental health of this population.MethodsScientific databases were searched for systematic reviews (inception-November 2015) which provided quantitative data on the mental ill-health of first generation migrants and associated risk factors. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text papers for their suitability against pre-specified criteria, methodological quality was assessed.ResultsOne thousand eight hundred twenty articles were identified, eight met inclusion criteria, which were all moderate or low quality. Depression was mostly higher in first generation migrants in general, and in refugees/asylum seekers when analysed separately. However, for both groups there was wide variation in prevalence rates, from 5 to 44 % compared with prevalence rates of 8–12 % in the general population. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder prevalence was higher for both first generation migrants in general and for refugees/asylum seekers compared with the settled majority. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder prevalence in first generation migrants in general and refugees/ asylum seekers ranged from 9 to 36 % compared with reported prevalence rates of 1–2 % in the general population. Few studies presented anxiety prevalence rates in first generation migrants and there was wide variation in those that did. Prevalence ranged from 4 to 40 % compared with reported prevalence of 5 % in the general population. Two reviews assessed the psychotic disorder risk, reporting this was two to three times more likely in adult first generation migrants. However, one review on the risk of schizophrenia in refugees reported similar prevalence rates (2 %) to estimates of prevalence among the settled majority (3 %). Risk factors for mental ill-health included low Gross National Product in the host country, downward social mobility, country of origin, and host country.ConclusionFirst generation migrants may be at increased risk of mental illness and public health policy must account for this and influencing factors. High quality research in the area is urgently needed as is the use of culturally specific validated measurement tools for assessing migrant mental health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

given that pregnancy-related low back and/ pelvic pain occur across the world, and affects the majority of pregnant women, heath care providers need to ensure that standard care provided is meeting women's needs. Health care professionals may require specific training in order to effectively provide individualised and evidence-based advice and support to pregnant women experiencing this pain.

There is limited evidence supporting the use of general CAM for managing pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic pain. However, the restricted availability of high-quality studies, combined with the very low evidence strength, makes it impossible to make evidence-based recommendations for practice.

BackgroundPrevious studies investigating the mental health of migrants have shown mixed results. The increased availability of register data has led to a growing number of register-based studies in this research area. This is the first scoping review on the use of registry and record-linkage data to examine the mental health of migrant populations. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate the topics covered and to assess the results yielded from these studies.MethodsWe used a scoping review methodology to search MedLine, PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for all register-based studies on the mental health of migrants. Two reviewers screened all papers, independently, using iteratively applied inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using gradually broadening inclusion and exclusion criteria for maximum “scope,” newly published criteria developed to appraise the methodological quality of record-linkage studies were applied to eligible papers and data were extracted in a charting exercise.ResultsA total of 1309 papers were screened and appraised, 51 of which met the eligibility and quality criteria and were included in the review. This review identified four major domains of register-based research within the topic of migrant mental health: rates and risks of psychiatric disorders, rates and risks of suicide mortality, the use of psychotropic drugs, and health service utilisation and mental health-related hospitalisation rates. We found that whilst migrants can be at an increased risk of developing psychotic disorders and suicide mortality, they are less likely to use psychotropic medication and mental health-related services.ConclusionsThis review systematically charts the register-based studies on migrants’ mental health for the first time. It shows the main topics and gaps in knowledge in this research domain, discusses the disadvantages of register-based studies, and suggests new directions for forthcoming studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0463-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background. Reflexology is one of the top forms of complementary and alternative medicine in the UK and is used for healthcare by a diverse range of people. However, it is offered by few healthcare providers as little scientific evidence is available explaining how it works or any health benefits it may confer. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence available from reflexology randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated changes in physiological or biochemical outcomes. Methods. Guidelines from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed: the following databases were searched from inception to December 2013: AMED, CAM Quest, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline Ovid, Proquest, and Pubmed. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two members of the review team and overall strength of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Results. Seventeen eligible RCTs met all inclusion criteria. A total of 34 objective outcome measures were analysed. Although twelve studies showed significant changes within the reflexology group, only three studies investigating blood pressure, cardiac index, and salivary amylase resulted in significant between group changes in favour of reflexology. The overall quality of the studies was low.