Migrant Health Research Group, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, UK.
School of Georgraphy, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Oct 25;11(10):e053678. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053678.
Analysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy.
A systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception-November 2020).
Original peer-reviewed articles reporting research to develop and implement a health intervention for migrants, incorporating participatory approaches. We defined migrants as foreign-born individuals. Only articles reporting the full research cycle (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination) were included.
We extracted information related to who was involved in research (migrants or other non-academic stakeholders), the research stage at which they were involved (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination), the method of their involvement and how this aligned with the core principles of participatory research-categorising studies as exhibiting active or pseudo (including proxy and indirect) participation.
1793 publications were screened, of which 28 were included in our analysis. We found substantial variation in the application of participatory approaches in designing health interventions targeting migrants: across 168 individual research stages analysed across the 28 studies, we recorded 46 instances of active participation of migrants, 30 instances of proxy participation and 24 instances of indirect participation. All studies involved non-academic stakeholders in at least one stage of the research, only two studies exhibited evidence of active participation of migrants across all research stages. Evidence is limited due to the variability of terms and approaches used.
Important shortfalls in the meaningful inclusion of migrants in developing health interventions exist, suggesting a more rigorous and standardised approach is warranted to better define and deliver participatory research and improve quality.
This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2bnz5).
分析针对移民制定健康干预措施的参与式方法，以及这些方法如何体现包容性和民主等核心参与式原则。
对原始文章进行系统回顾。在 MEDLINE、Embase、全球卫生和 PsychINFO 数据库中进行电子检索（从创建至 2020 年 11 月）。
报告为移民制定和实施健康干预措施并纳入参与式方法的原创同行评审文章。我们将移民定义为出生在国外的个人。仅纳入报告完整研究周期（创建、设计、实施、分析、评估、传播）的文章。
我们提取了与参与研究的人员（移民或其他非学术利益相关者）、他们参与的研究阶段（创建、设计、实施、分析、评估、传播）、他们参与的方法以及如何与参与式研究的核心原则保持一致的相关信息-将研究归类为表现出积极或伪参与（包括代理和间接参与）。
筛选出 1793 篇论文，其中 28 篇被纳入我们的分析。我们发现，针对移民设计健康干预措施的参与式方法的应用存在很大差异：在 28 项研究中分析的 168 个单独研究阶段中，我们记录了 46 次移民的积极参与，30 次代理参与和 24 次间接参与。所有研究都至少在研究的一个阶段涉及非学术利益相关者，只有两项研究在所有研究阶段都表现出移民的积极参与。由于所用术语和方法的差异，证据有限。
在制定健康干预措施过程中，移民的实质性参与存在重要缺陷，这表明需要采取更严格和标准化的方法，以更好地定义和提供参与式研究并提高质量。
本综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目，并在开放科学框架（osf.io/2bnz5）上注册。
