Refugee health in Europe: mapping review of research literature (2015–2019)

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to map research literature on all aspects of refugee health in Europe (2015–2019): by research domain, study design, targeted population, type of setting, host country, journal title. This will help to identify recent research trends in the field, provide policymakers with useful source of information and help researches to target important gaps in evidence.Design/methodology/approachWHO (with other international agencies) has developed strategic documents and produced technical guidance, which formulate priority issues of refugee health in Europe. These documents state the need for relevant information and research data to support effective decision-making at all levels of health care systems. Although recent bibliometric analysis of global migration health research (2000–2016) concluded that 25.4% of retrieved documents were about refugees and asylum seekers, still there remain critical gaps in the knowledge base on a wide range of determinants of health service delivery and access for refugees and asylum seekers in the WHO European Region. Mapping review design was chosen as it maps and categorizes existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature. Search strategy was developed and searches were executed in six databases: PubMed Medline; Scopus; ProQuest (Thesis and Dissertations); Cochrane Library; BASE; eLibrary (Russian journal articles).FindingsMapping review revealed that although research in some domains of refugee health was growing (mental health, infectious diseases, access to health care), there are still gaps in evidence in many important aspects: maternal and reproductive health, NCD, nutrition and economic evaluations. Most of 1,291 retrieved studies used observational or quasi-experimental design (75%), while very few were experimental studies (1.8%). Secondary research constituted a significant portion of retrieved publications: systematic reviews and meta-analysis – 8%, other reviews with systematic approach – 16%.Originality/valueDetailed mapping of research by a combination of setting, population and research domains and comparison of results with those from previous decades and with planned trials and systematic reviews.