Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
Volume 21, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 401-413
Migrant Healthcare Guidelines: A Systematic Quality Assessment (Review)
Agbata E.N.* ,
Padilla P.F. ,
Agbata I.N. ,
Armas L.H. ,
Solà I. ,
Pottie K. ,
Alonso-Coello P.
-
a
Faculty of Health and Psychology, Master of Public Health (MPH) programme, University of Roehampton, London, United Kingdom, Methodology of Biomedical Research and Public Health, Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
-
b
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Spain, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile
-
c
The Wicklow Mental Health Service, Newcastle Hospital, Greystones, Wicklow, Ireland
-
d
Biomedical Research Institute, Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
-
e
CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
-
f
Centre for Global Health Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
-
g
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Spain, CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain, Biomedical Research Institute, Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
Significant international and cross-border migration has led to a growing availability of migrant healthcare guidelines (MHGs), which we systematically reviewed for quality. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychINFO and guideline developer/guideline databases were searched for MHGs published 2006–2016. Three independent reviewers assessed eligible MHGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument (AGREE II). MHGs were identified as high quality if they had a score of ≥ 60% in at least three of the six domains, including “rigour of development”, and overall quality was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale. We included 32 MHGs. Overall agreement between reviewers was very good. Mean scores for each AGREE II domain were as follows: 85 ± 19.0% for “scope and purpose”; 51 ± 30.5% for “stakeholder involvement”; 34 ± 31.9% for “rigour of development”; 86 ± 7.3% for “clarity of presentation”; 40 ± 23.6% for “applicability”; and 27 ± 38.5% for “editorial independence”. Nine and six MHGs were deemed “recommended” or “recommended with modifications”, respectively, and 17 were “not recommended”. Our review of MHGs has highlighted critical deficiencies in rigour of development, applicability, editorial independence and stakeholder involvement that point to the need for improvements in future MHGs. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
Link
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85047218032&doi=10.1007%2fs10903-018-0759-9&partnerID=40&md5=c1b53f2e56739618c426c89e822c0e31
DOI: 10.1007/s10903-018-0759-9
ISSN: 15571912
Cited by: 2
Original Language: English