Comparison of delivery characteristics and early obstetric outcomes between Turkish women and Syrian refugee pregnancies

Cesarean birth rates among migrants in Europe: A systematic review

“…One additional paper was identified for full‐text assessment through searching reference lists of included studies, resulting in full‐text assessment being carried out on 54 papers in total. Twenty‐one papers were included in the final review and analysis 28–48 . Figure 1 illustrates the selection process, the number of studies identified and excluded at each stage, and the reasons for exclusion, in line with the PRISMA 2020 statement 49 .…”

Wellbeing Outcomes and Risk and Protective Factors for Parents with Migrant and Refugee Backgrounds from the Middle East in the First 1000 Days: A Systematic Review

“…One paper was qualitative but included a measure of depression for context [ 66 ]. Sixteen papers specified participants were refugees [ 37 – 39 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 54 , 58 – 61 , 63 – 67 ]; the remaining papers included participants of both refugee and migrant status, or did not specify. Because more than half of the included papers did not specify refugee status, it was not possible to consistently examine differences between refugees and other migrants.…”

“…Because more than half of the included papers did not specify refugee status, it was not possible to consistently examine differences between refugees and other migrants. 30 papers were conducted in resettlement countries [ 34 – 37 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 44 – 46 , 48 – 53 , 55 – 66 ]; three papers were unclear as to whether participants were in transit or had permanently resettled [ 38 , 41 , 54 ]; and two studies included participants who had both registered for resettlement (though permanency was unclear), and who had resettled without documentation [ 43 , 47 ]. In five instances two or more papers included the same data and thus appeared to be from the same overarching study: two papers by Alhasanat-Khalil and colleagues [ 35 , 36 ], two papers by Bawadi and colleagues [ 48 , 62 ], three papers by Hjelm and colleagues [ 51 – 53 ], two by Riggs and colleagues [ 58 , 59 ], and two by Stirling Cameron and colleagues [ 64 , 65 ].…”

“…Twenty-six papers presented data collected in high income countries, namely Canada [ 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 64 , 65 , 67 ], USA [ 34 – 36 ], United Kingdom [ 48 , 62 ], Sweden [ 49 , 51 – 53 , 56 , 57 ], Australia [ 50 , 55 , 58 – 61 ], and Germany [ 63 ]. The remaining papers were conducted in middle-income countries, namely Jordan [ 37 , 41 , 46 ], Turkey [ 39 , 54 , 66 ], Lebanon [ 38 , 43 ], and Iran [ 47 ]. Seven papers did not specify country of origin of all participants other than ‘Middle East’ or ‘Maghreb’ [ 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 57 ].…”

“…In terms of sampling five were cohort studies [ 37 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 45 ]; all other papers employed convenience or purposive sampling methods, such as recruitment through health services, which may be a potential source of bias.…”