REVIEW
Open Access

Interventions to Improve the Reproductive Health of Undocumented Female Migrants and Refugees in Protracted Situations: A Systematic Review

Silvana Larrea-Schiavon, Lucía M. Vázquez-Quesada, Lindsay R. Bartlett, Nayeli Lam-Cervantes, Pooja Sripad, Isabel Vieitez and Liliana Coutiño-Escamilla
Global Health: Science and Practice December 2022, 10(6):e2100418; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00418

Key Findings

  • Providing free or low-cost services to migrant women and female refugees in protracted situations is a critical strategy in successfully ensuring access to the continuum of sexual and reproductive, maternal, and newborn care services.

  • Staffing health care units with culturally competent and trained personnel influences the prevalence of contraception use and can reduce maternal and neonatal complications and adverse outcomes.

  • Educational interventions can potentially have a greater impact if implemented after or concurrently with the improvement of health system capacities.

Key Implications

  • Implementing organizations should consider the importance of cultural sensitivity and security when designing and implementing the intervention and should support, as much as possible, a health system culture of de-identified electronic record keeping—particularly in conflict areas, as records can get lost during violent attacks.

  • Implementing organizations, research partners, and target communities should be involved from the start in the design of the intervention and evaluation so that both components are responsive to community needs and have strong monitoring and evaluation methodologies to report on best practices and lessons learned.

ABSTRACT

Objective:

Limited evidence exists on interventions aimed at enabling reproductive health (RH) services access for undocumented female migrants and refugee women. We aimed to identify intervention characteristics and impacts on RH outcomes among migrants and refugee women in protracted situations.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic literature review of RH intervention studies that reported on migrants and refugee women in protracted situations. We applied 2 search strategies across 6 databases to identify peer-reviewed articles in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Eligible studies were assessed for content and quality.

Results:

Of the 21,453 screened studies, we included 10 (all observational) for final data extraction. Interventions implemented among migrant and refugee women included financial support (n=2), health service delivery structure strengthening (n=4), and educational interventions (n=4). Financial support intervention studies showed that enabling women to obtain RH services for free or at a low cost promoted utilization (e.g., increased use of contraception). Interventions that established or strengthened health service delivery structures and linkage demonstrated increased prenatal visits, decreased maternal mortality, and facilitated access to safe abortion through referral services or access to medical abortion. Educational interventions indicated positive effects on RH knowledge and the importance of involving peers and meeting the unique needs of a mobile population. All intervention studies emphasized the need to accommodate migrant security concerns and cultural and linguistic needs.

Conclusion:

Interventions in protracted situations reported positive outcomes when they were migrant or refugee-centered and complementary, culturally acceptable, geographically proximate, and cost-sensitive, as well as recognized the concerns around legality and involved opportunities for peer learning. Free or low-cost RH services and greater availability of basic and emergency maternal and neonatal care showed the most promise but required further community outreach, education, and stronger referral mechanisms. We recommend further participatory implementation research linked to policy and programming.

INTRODUCTION

International migration is a global and growing phenomenon. Its implications for health systems include challenges to ensuring necessary health and social services in transit and destination countries. It is estimated that in 2020, there were a total of 281 million international migrants worldwide (3.6% of the total population).1 From 2000 to 2020, the number of refugees has almost doubled, from 14 million to 26.4 million.1 In 2020, 48.3% of international migrants were women and girls.1

Undocumented migrants and refugees in protracted situations find themselves transiting locations without meeting the requirements that a sovereign state has to allow them to reside, work, and access services in its territory. Women of these populations are often isolated, without documents or support networks, and subject to gender-based violence, which is often perpetrated by their partners and family members, migration authorities, and smugglers. Living in a country that is not their own, female migrants and refugees encounter legal frameworks, discrimination, and language barriers that make it difficult for them to access basic needs such as education, health services, or humanitarian resources.2,3

In most countries, women who lack a regular migratory status have limited access to health services; if they are on the move, the continuum of care provision can be further restricted because of their short stay in a single geographic setting. This population is often characterized by low socioeconomic opportunity, generalized insecurity, and precarious legal status. Barriers to health care access are accompanied by unequal reproductive health (RH) outcomes among undocumented migrant women and girls and refugees in protracted situations. Once pregnant, undocumented migrant women and female refugees are exposed to inadequate antenatal care and experience a higher probability of complications during pregnancy (gestational diabetes and pregnancy hypertensive disease) and stillbirths than nonmigrant women.4–6 Undocumented migrant women and female refugees are also at increased risk of unintended or forced pregnancies, rape, sexually transmitted infections, and unsafe abortions.7 Some of the factors identified that negatively affect access to RH for this population include fear of abuse and discrimination by health professionals, limited mobility, lack of transportation and distance to the health services, and lack of adequately trained and sensitized health providers.8 Therefore, the intersections between migration, women, and health requires special attention to promoting access to comprehensive RH services, with a focus on short and long-term contraceptive methods, sexual violence support services, and prenatal and childbirth care.

Although there are interventions and guidelines aimed at targeting RH in humanitarian settings, to our knowledge, there is limited empirical evidence of the impact of these interventions on RH outcomes.9–12 How many people benefit and how they are cared for is regularly documented, but the results obtained are hardly systematized and subject to verification. Moreover, RH interventions are even less frequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a global systematic review to identify the outcomes of intervention studies focused on improving the RH of undocumented female migrants and refugees in protracted situations. We synthesized research that highlights RH outcomes and intervention components that have been tested among undocumented migrant women and refugees in protracted situations, regardless of whether the intervention was described as successful or unsuccessful, to provide evidence and recommendations for governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to support their goals of improving the well-being of these populations.

This study contributes to understanding how to address the RH service needs of undocumented female migrants and/or refugees in protracted situations by exploring interventions and unveiling complexities at the intersections between migration and health. These intersections are of particular interest to global and national stakeholders committed to upholding international human rights frameworks and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity and well-being for all.

This study contributes to understanding how to address the RH service needs of undocumented female migrants and/or refugees in protracted situations by exploring interventions and unveiling complexities at the intersections between migration and health.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of intervention studies on RH following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement guidelines. Because we aimed to identify the characteristics and impact of interventions, we included both qualitative and quantitative research in our analysis. Table 1 details the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria.

View this table:
TABLE 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Selection Process on Interventions to Improve the Reproductive Health of Undocumented Female Migrants and Refugees in Protracted Situations

Following the 2019 Glossary on Migration of the International Organization for Migration, we defined an undocumented female migrant as a female nonnational who enters or stays in a country without the appropriate documentation.

We defined a female refugee using the 1951 Refugee Convention definition13:

a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinions, is outside the country of her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country.

We defined a protracted situation as a situation in which refugees have been unable to return to their habitual residence for a long period of time and where the process for finding durable solutions, such as repatriation, integration in host countries, settlement in third locations, or other mobility opportunities has stalled.13

We decided to include and focus on these populations, given their limited access to health care because of a lack of documentation and living and housing conditions (e.g., refugee camps, informal settlements, or migrant shelters). There is a lack of consensus on when the refugee situation is considered prolonged. Some organizations and stakeholders emphasize the duration of displacement (e.g., 12 months or 3 years) as a reference point. Others consider that the situation is prolonged if people are not able to return to their country of origin, so their location is used as the main criterion. Finally, others identify a continued need for humanitarian action as the key element of the definition. For the present study, we defined refugees in protracted situations encompassing all situations in which the process of finding solutions has stalled.13

We defined RH as14:

a state of complete physical, mental and social-well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.

To focus the review’s scope on answerable research questions related to RH interventions, we refrained from broadening our search to gender-based and sexual violence services. Because of the high prevalence and long-term consequences of gender-based and sexual violence among undocumented female migrants and refugees in protracted situations, we believe that separate systematic reviews on these issues are needed. We excluded studies that solely focused on sexually transmitted infections and not broader RH programming. Interventions were defined as an articulated or sequential set of political, programmatic, and ethical actions to improve the beneficiaries’ knowledge, skills, conditions (including health), and other competencies. These actions may be implemented by health and social service professionals or researchers and must have had the purpose of reducing a social problem, for example, lack of access to RH services.15 Interventions included were limited to services intending to promote the well-being of women’s reproductive lives across the continuum of care, including contraception, safe abortion, prenatal, childbirth, and postnatal care.

Search Strategy

We used 6 search engines specialized in health and social sciences: Cochrane Library, MedLine (via PubMed), BIREME, PsycNet, SCIELO, and Web of Science. Screening the reference list of relevant systematic reviews as well as an intentional search in Google complemented the search strategy. Boolean operators were used for those search engines that allowed it, as well as the corresponding filters by type of study, date of publication, and language (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). We used 2 search strategies for every search engine (Figure 1). Each search strategy included a combination of terms related to population, intervention, and outcome. Keywords with high sensitivity and low specificity, such as women, contraception, or contraceptive, were removed after several search iterations to identify relevant terms in each search strategy. We added the term asylum as part of our search strategy to capture some of the articles about undocumented migrants and refugees in protracted situations. However, we did not include any article that solely focused on asylum seekers. Each word combination was conducted with the corresponding translation in each language. The searches were conducted independently by NL, LB, and LC.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Search Strategies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese Used in the Identification of Records for the Systematic Review

In Google, we added the names of NGOs, academic institutions, and United Nations (UN) agencies known to work with the populations of interest to the previously selected search terms. The NGOs and UN agencies included in the search were the UN Refugee Agency, Médicins Sans Frontieres, Médicins du Monde, EMERGENCY, Marie Stopes International, Women’s Refugee Commission, Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises, National Institutes of Health, and the Population Council. These organizations, as identified by the Population Council, have a history of providing health care services to migrant and refugee populations in humanitarian settings, documenting their interventions, and conducting monitoring and evaluation reports of their efforts.

Data Analysis

The research team used Microsoft Excel to download all returned citations from the searches and summarize data from the studies included in the analysis. All authors reviewed data screening and analysis.

Given the heterogeneity of interventions, designs, and outcomes of the studies that fit the inclusion criteria, we used a narrative synthesis methodology to analyze results. Studies included in the analysis were assessed for quality using checklists compatible with the study design and methodology: the Cochrane Collaboration Manual for randomized control trials,16 the STROBE statement for observational studies,17 and The Joanna Briggs Institute’s Checklist for Qualitative Research.18 Eligible articles were given a quality score that was converted into the percentage of the total achievable score. As per previous reports, thresholds were set up to rate studies’ quality as low (0%–33%), medium (34%–66%), or high (67% or above).10 Articles were divided between NL, LB, LC, SL, and LV, independently rated for quality, then reviewed in pairs. After peer discussion, if a consensus could not be reached, then a third reviewer rated the article.

RESULTS

We obtained a total of 21,453 citations, of which 17,419 corresponded to titles and abstracts obtained through specialized search engines, 114 through the intentional search in Google, and 3,920 through screening the references of relevant systematic reviews (Figure 2). Of the total citations, 8,118 were excluded due to double counting and 12,966 were excluded in the abstract screening for not meeting the inclusion criteria. In addition, using the search word “transit” yielded a large number of unfavorable results related to transport or digestive processes in medical sciences. We assessed 306 articles for eligibility for full-text reading, of which 273 were excluded for not meeting the population, intervention, and outcome criteria. Thirty-three articles were included for a full-text critical reading, 23 of which did not meet the inclusion criteria because they lacked a measure of comparison or impact estimate (n=22) or because the data were found on an NGO website, and it was not known whether the data went through an editorial review process (n=1).19 Additional reasons for exclusion were gaps in data analysis and other methodological weaknesses, such as small sample size (<30 participants) or insufficient data regarding the intervention. Ten studies were included in the narrative synthesis (Table 2).20–29

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2

Selection Process for Systematic Review on Interventions to Improve the Reproductive Health of Undocumented Female Migrants and Refugees in Protracted Situations

View this table:
TABLE 2.

Characteristics, Interventions, and Results of Studies To Improve Reproductive Health for Undocumented Female Migrants and Refugees

All studies included were observational; there were no randomized or field trials. Six studies were implemented in refugee camps,21–23,26–28 and the other 4 studies included undocumented migrant women and refugees in destination countries20 and border areas.24,25,29 There were 5 quantitative,20–22,26,28 3 qualitative,24,25,27 and 2 mixed-methods studies.23,29 As shown in Table 2, 7 studies were rated high quality according to the measures used.20,21,23–25,28,29 However, in most cases, the methodological design was not adequate to report impact results, as they were ex post facto studies and/or did not have a comparison group. The 10 studies were conducted in the United States,20 Pakistan,21,22 Lebanon,23 Thailand,24,25,29 Guinea,26,28 and Uganda.27

Nine studies were conducted by teams working in refugee camps or by university-led research groups. The interventions were diverse: 2 evaluated the improvement in access to RH services through the provision of public (Medicaid)20 or private health insurance21; 2 studies evaluated the impact of improving health infrastructure and staff capacities in border areas22,23; 2 evaluated referral services and/or access to safe abortion24,25; and 4 evaluated the impact of educational interventions, implemented either by trained personnel or peers, on increasing RH knowledge (Table 2).26–29

Two financial support intervention studies done in the United States20 and Pakistan21 showed that enabling undocumented migrant and refugee women to obtain RH services for free or at low cost promotes RH service utilization. The study in Pakistan showed that, compared to only making health services available, subsidizing health care through public or private insurance plans doubled the frequency of a woman having heard about contraceptive methods (44.9% vs. 88.9%), and increased approval of contraceptive use among women, their friends, and partners.21 Likewise, the use of contraceptive methods increased by 29 percentage points in the group of women with access to subsidized health care, compared to the group of women who did not have access to health care subsidies.21 Similarly, the U.S. study showed that, compared to migrant women in Florida state where Medicaid was restricted for this population, the proportion of pregnant undocumented migrant women that attended prenatal care during the first trimester was 18 percentage points higher in the states of California and New York, where subsidized services through Medicaid were provided.20 In addition, among migrant women with access to Medicaid, 22% more women received adequate prenatal services compared to those without access to Medicaid.20

Two financial support intervention studies done in the United States and Pakistan showed that enabling undocumented migrant and refugee women to obtain RH services for free or at low cost promotes RH service utilization.

Two studies conducted in Pakistan22 and Lebanon23 showed that health systems interventions that established or strengthened health service delivery structures targeting refugees or located in refugee areas generally had a positive impact on reproductive and maternal health. In Pakistan, the establishment of emergency obstetric care units combined with community-level efforts to educate refugee and undocumented migrant women and their families and facilitate links with the unit was related to a 41% increase in the number of women that attended at least 3 prenatal visits, a reduction in maternal mortality (291 vs. 102 per 100,000 women), and a 0.2% prevalence in maternal deaths after cesarean delivery.22 The prevalence of maternal deaths related to cesarean deliveries was consistent and within the <1% goal of the United Nations at that time.22 In Lebanon, strengthening primary health care services in areas with a high population of refugees showed high RH service utilization among refugees; in some health areas, service use was higher among refugee women than local women in the same area (Table 2).23 This intervention is described as “supporting” facilities, but no further detail was provided.23 These 2 interventions occurred during a period of at least 3 years and included aspects of cultural and gender sensitivity.22,23

The 2 studies conducted in Thailand focused on facilitating access to safe abortion for migrant women.24,25 One evaluated a referral program to access free safe abortion services.24 The other evaluated an intervention with community health promoters, who provided counseling on safe abortion and access to a free supply of recommended and correctly dosed oral misoprostol.25 Both interventions showed positive results in terms of referral to safe abortion services (64% of all women who requested the referral were given one)24 and effectiveness of the procedure (96% of women who accessed misoprostol through the community-based distribution program had a complete abortion).25 Women expressed satisfaction with the experience and a perception of increased empowerment and capacity to advocate for their RH rights after the intervention. One study informed that the intervention with oral misoprostol was safe and the only side effects reported were tolerable.25 The 2017 study described that one-fifth of participants reported that they were denied abortion services mainly due to the subjective interpretation of health personnel on legal grounds.24 Both interventions had an important subsidy component; the costs of medical supplies, transportation, and interpreters were absorbed by the implementing organizations and not by the women themselves.

Four studies conducted in Guinea,26,28 Uganda,27 and Thailand29 evaluated the influence of educational interventions on RH outcomes of migrant and refugee women. All but 1 of the studies included a qualitative component in the evaluation.28 Two educational interventions trained community promoters and implemented community outreach strategies.28,29 One included an educational campaign that raised awareness among health care workers and women (including refugees) on the prevention of neural tube defects with the intake of folic acid during the early stages of pregnancy.29 The other study trained refugee women to provide RH education, referrals, and contraceptives for women in their communities.28 The third followed a peer-education methodology to increase the knowledge of migrant women sex workers regarding human rights, life skills, advocacy, sex work, and sexual and RH.27 The last study evaluated the impact of RH literacy sessions on refugee women living in camps.26

These studies suggested variable effects of the interventions on knowledge and behaviors, with higher gains in the former. While 1 study showed a significant increase in knowledge among health care workers on the importance of folic acid intake, it did not observe a corresponding uptake in folic acid consumption by women.29 Another study identified a mean difference of 21.7% in the socialization with partners and other family members of knowledge acquired by women regarding safe sex.26 In contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in antenatal care seeking between women who participated in interventions and those who did not28 nor in increased folic acid consumption practices.29 The 4 study findings suggested that educational interventions can increase knowledge, especially when led by peers, but knowledge shifts do not always translate into changes in practices or increased care-seeking behaviors. Still, promoting safe spaces to learn about or discuss RH seems to provide a sense of self-confidence,26 to inspire women to become advocates of their RH,27 and is particularly relevant for stigmatized populations.27 Among migrant sex workers and transgender women, peer education helped address concerns of privacy and confidentiality, reporting increased access to information, management skills, and ability to discuss and disseminate knowledge with peers and clients alike.27

DISCUSSION

Our review of literature from the past 2 decades identified 10 observational studies that, according to our inclusion criteria, provided sufficient documentation and measures of intervention impacts on RH of migrant women and female refugees. Interventions can be broadly classified as: (1) interventions that subsidized or gave financial assistance for accessing RH services at zero or minimum cost20,21; (2) health systems interventions that established or strengthened service structures for refugees in the areas where they live or provided access to safe abortion interventions22–25; and (3) educational and community interventions that aim to increase RH knowledge and thus help-seeking behaviors and access to RH services.26–29

Promising approaches for future research and programming interventions in protracted situations have a focus on geographic proximity, are cost-sensitive, involve opportunities for peer sharing and learning, and are culturally appropriate. Additionally, interventions must recognize and address undocumented migrant concerns around legality and access to resources.

One reason for the limited number of studies evaluating intervention impacts on RH outcomes in refugee women is that most interventions were implemented in adverse political environments and contexts that may pose unique challenges for study purposes. For example, except for the United States, the remaining countries included with reported studies in this review have highly restrictive legal frameworks for abortion that do not include legal exemptions for rape and where women and providers, as well as any person who assists them, may be prosecuted according to penal codes.30 Two of the United States–Mexico border states—Texas and Arizona—have a high prevalence of migrant populations and restrictive abortion laws, as well as increased immigration enforcement laws.31 In addition, policies, such as the Mexico City Rule (1984), may have posed barriers to supporting and developing interventions on abortion care for vulnerable populations in U.S.-assisted countries.32 Other potential explanations on the limited studies relate to the diversity of definitions and packages that can be offered in RH services, making them difficult to homogenize to be studied, and the definition and range of services included in this review. Furthermore, refugee population present multiple challenges for the purposes of studying and evaluating interventions, regardless of the type of health intervention.

In our study, of the 6 countries with reported studies, none favor broad and free access to all RH services for refugees and undocumented migrants. Restrictions are present in access to pregnancy termination and a wide range of contraceptives.33–37 Furthermore, these countries show a trend toward the privatization of health services, a punitive culture toward the free exercise of sexuality, and the criminalization of sex work.38–43 In some instances, the countries that temporarily host migrants or refugees are neighboring states to those in conflict and are susceptible to forced migration implications (e.g., Ghana, Lebanon, and Pakistan). These unstable circumstances directly affect the implementation of interventions and the collection of data required for research and evaluation.26,28 Nonetheless, some studies26,27,29 indicate the possibility of documenting the impact of intervention through quantitative and qualitative study designs. Future implementation research should consider both what is pragmatic and flexible in protracted migration settings.

Findings from this systematic review suggest that providing free or low-cost services to migrant women and female refugees in protracted situations is a critical strategy in successfully ensuring access to the continuum of sexual and reproductive, maternal, and newborn care services. The findings also concur with other studies documenting increased use of contraceptive methods and prenatal care following interventions.6 Studies with nonmigrant populations similarly report that increased enrollment in economic transfer programs or a reduced cost of services results in increased utilization of reproductive and prenatal services.44,45 Subsidies reduce financial barriers to accessing health services and necessary medical supplies,46,47 as well as potentially motivate migrants who may otherwise hesitate to spend out-of-pocket given the precarious socioeconomic circumstances that they are in. Also, when the subsidy is public, undocumented migrants are provided with conditions similar to those of citizens, facilitating migrant women´s ability to exercise their right to RH care.48

Findings from this review suggest that providing free or low-cost services to migrant women and female refugees in protracted situations is a critical strategy in successfully ensuring access to the continuum of sexual and reproductive, maternal, and newborn care services.

Review findings coincide with other studies around the need to strengthen health systems structures to ensure access to available health services among refugee and undocumented migrant women. Staffing health care units with culturally competent and trained personnel influences the prevalence of contraception use and reduces maternal and neonatal complications and adverse outcomes.11,12,49,50 Studies included in our review do not adequately describe aspects important for the replication of interventions. For example, the establishment of a unit of care entails hiring qualified, trained, and certified personnel; thus, studies should document financial considerations and mechanisms for sustainability. A study in Tanzania with a nonmigrant population identified a median per-patient cost of US$290 across 6 evaluated facilities. The 2 items associated with the highest expenditure were the hiring of personnel and the purchase of equipment (32% and 28% of the total budget, respectively).51,52 A mention of the minimum budget required to implement and maintain these interventions in border areas and/or with refugee and migrant populations would be helpful to those aiming at replicating specified intervention dimensions. Even though the budget to be allocated in each country would be different, a good estimation exercise would consist of observing the proportion of the budget allocated to RH services compared to the total expenditure on health in the countries that have already shown favorable impacts on RH outcomes among undocumented female migrants and female refugees in protracted situations.

Our review of access to safe abortion interventions aligns with findings of studies with nonmigrant populations regarding the safety and effectiveness of involving trained lay health care workers as facilitators of access,53 by either linking women with legal services or providing medication abortion under the regimen of misoprostol alone (e.g., without mifepristone) within the first 12 weeks of gestation.54 When governments do not offer accessible abortion services, NGOs could play an important role in providing a range of RH services,55 particularly for migrant women who face similar legal RH restrictions as reported by nonmigrant women but have additional concerns such as deportation and needs such as understanding and navigating the host country’s health system and overcoming language barriers and cultural differences regarding service provision.24

While abortion-related interventions are often framed as a harm-reduction strategy,56 the relevance of establishing a referral system to enable health care facility access to postabortion care is implicit. Tousaw et al. is an example of the feasibility of establishing referral systems for abortion or postabortion services.24 Future studies on interventions facilitating access to safe abortion or postabortion among refugees and undocumented migrants should emphasize practical, ethical, and legal specificities while training personnel. Regarding the use of misoprostol to induce a pregnancy termination among refugee and migrant women, evidence suggests the effectiveness and safety of medical abortion at home,57 with the support of information and counseling via telemedicine if need be.58 Additionally, evidence from varied clinical contexts across countries suggests that early medical abortion is a cost-effective strategy compared to surgical methods.59,60 Medical abortion as a self-care, person-centered approach can help countries expand their response to migrant and refugee women without having to access health facilities and increase these women’s agency in RH decision making.61 The states’ responsibility to provide postabortion care (including postabortion contraception) and abortion services beyond the first trimester remains, and the lack of evaluated interventions in the literature suggests an intervention and/or a research gap.

Although we acknowledge that education-focused interventions are important to empower women to act on the knowledge they have gained, our review points to educational interventions as potentially having a greater impact if implemented after or concurrently with health system capacity improvements (e.g., infrastructure and specialized staff). According to the results of this systematic review, interventions aimed at increasing RH knowledge raise awareness but do not necessarily influence behavioral change.26,27,29 Interventions that link and conduct follow-up with service users whenever health care capacities are already installed show better results in RH outcomes of migrant and refugee women62 and of nonmigrant women alike.63 Moreover, the inclusion of nearby communities and women’s partners in educational interventions can be beneficial for women, as these allies become facilitators (and not barriers) to adopting health care–seeking behaviors.64 Lastly, educational interventions providing information show a self-reported empowerment effect on participants, especially when the intervention includes the creation of safe spaces and peer-support groups.26,27 Thus, educational interventions, combined with community-level strategies and availability of health services, can increase the probability of RH self-care or self-efficacy in the short, medium, and long term.65

One common element that emerged across study narratives was that cultural competency and security should inform intervention design and implementation. We affirm this need and recommend that these elements are included as essential aspects of future intervention design and evaluations. Examples from the interventions analyzed include naming the emergency obstetric care unit a “minor operating theater” to respect refugee women’s desire for privacy22 or reconsidering the use of the label “sex worker,” being that it is often a temporary and forced source of income that women do not use to define themselves.27

One common element that emerged across study narratives was that cultural competency and security should inform intervention design and implementation.

As reviewed studies included primarily monitoring and auditing data, there is a need for investigators to support as much as possible a health system culture of de-identified electronic record keeping, provided that the security and confidentiality of the data can be guaranteed—particularly in conflict areas, as records can get lost during violent attacks.22,26,28,66 Our review also shows that local social conflict may arise when interventions are not inclusive of all of the population living in a locality, such as some refugees receiving subsidized care while others do not21 or refugees receiving more care than uninsured local populations.23 The latter is particularly more visible among refugees (compared to undocumented migrants), given the financial support that countries might receive from the UN Refugee Agency.66

Our review’s identification of prevailing gaps suggests that further evaluation is needed to inform the community of practice aiming to improve RH outcomes of migrant and refugee women living in protracted situations. Particularly important is evidence on how to address difficulties that arise because of the mobility of this population and the constant changes in staff providing health care in these contexts.

Further areas to explore include considering telehealth and digital platforms for information on RH topics, service options, and self-care to improve RH outcomes and other innovative interventions, as well as implementation science and participatory approaches. Studies included in this review do not mention the referral systems they use to provide comprehensive care, nor do they mention a trauma-informed approach to the RH services offered. Referral to mental health services is particularly important in the migratory context since migration is often related to traumatic violence experiences before or during the migratory journey. Similarly, future implementation and evaluation of RH interventions should consider a trauma-informed approach for RH (i.e., providing a trustworthy environment and ensuring care does not revictimize service users). Such approaches can be part of the training on cultural sensitivity for health care providers and other personnel working with undocumented and refugee populations. Trauma-informed approaches and resulting outcomes should be assessed using implementation research.

Documenting, assessing, and evaluating efforts to improve undocumented migrant women and female refugees’ RH outcomes—possibly drawing on perspectives of these populations—are needed to strengthen care provision. A knowledge management platform for quick referencing could further allow NGOs and governmental institutions working toward improving RH outcomes in migrant and refugee populations to explore what other interventions have been implemented, where they have been implemented, and the results of these interventions.

Documenting, assessing, and evaluating efforts to improve undocumented migrant women and female refugees’ RH outcomes are needed to strengthen care provision.

Limitations

Our review has several limitations. First, this was a secondary study that directly depended on the contents and quality of data from the primary studies. As already mentioned, many studies did not include in-depth evaluations of the impact of interventions on the RH outcomes of migrant and refugee women. Quasi-experimental and pre-post evaluations with a control population group could shed more light on the impact of interventions on the target population. However, given the challenges of conducting rigorous evaluations among these populations, elevating the voices of successful experiences and conducting pragmatic implementation research should be prioritized in partnership with the community of practice. Obtaining information on the differential outcomes that interventions may achieve on subpopulations (e.g., adolescent versus adult women) could also provide indications on how to improve practice. Another limitation was that because the focus of the inclusion criteria was on RH, interventions aimed at addressing other SRH needs, such as sexual violence and sexually transmitted infections, were beyond the study’s scope, even though these needs are highly prevalent among migrant communities.67 Further studies should focus on the impact of interventions to address gender-based violence and sexually transmitted infections among this target population. Additionally, the search strategies were done in 3 languages, and it is possible that we could have found more studies if the number of languages had been expanded. Finally, the heterogeneity of the data did not allow for reaching summary measures through a meta-analysis. Nevertheless, this heterogeneity revealed some of the diverse populations, contexts, and circumstances of mobile communities worldwide. Our findings represent a good portion of the variety of implementation contexts for NGOs and governmental institutions, allowing our conclusions and recommendations to be transferrable.

CONCLUSION

During the migratory process, undocumented migrant women and female refugees in protracted situations find themselves in contexts that put them at higher risk of sexual violence and unwanted RH outcomes. There is limited high-quality research on migrant-centered RH interventions. However, interventions that reduce disease, unintended pregnancy, and fatal RH outcomes include subsidizing or giving financial assistance for accessing RH services and establishing or strengthening health services for undocumented migrant women and female refugees where they live. The successes and challenges to providing RH services identified within this review can inform future programming worldwide, particularly in regions like Latin America and the Caribbean, where fewer interventions have been implemented and evaluated. Intervention budgets and RH service financing should include evaluation as an essential element of future programmatic research. This review, consistent with other studies, suggests combining interventions in a culturally acceptable comprehensive approach will best meet the RH needs of migrant and refugee women.

Funding

Funding for the study was provided by an anonymous donor.

Disclaimer

The funder had no role in study conceptualization, study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article.

Author contributions

SL and LV conceived and designed the study. PS, IV, and LC contributed to study design. SL, LV, LC, LB, and NL implemented the study and analyzed the study data. SL, LV, and LC drafted the article. All authors reviewed, revised, and approved the article.

Competing interests

None declared.

Notes

Peer Reviewed

Cite this article as: Larrea-Schiavon S, Vázquez-Quesada LM, Bartlett LR, et al. Interventions to improve the reproductive health of undocumented female migrants and refugees in protracted situations: a systematic review. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(6):e2100418. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00418

  • Received: June 3, 2021.
  • Accepted: November 8, 2022.
  • Published: December 21, 2022.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00418

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    International Organization for Migration (IOM). World Migration Report 2022. IOM; 2022. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2022
  2. 2.↵
    1. Chavez Baray SM,
    2. Moya E,
    3. Ravelo Blancas P,
    4. Báez Ayala SL
    . Experiencias de violencias de mujeres migrantes en Ciudad Juárez y El Paso. In: Migración y Salud. Consejo Nacional de Población; 2020:61–73.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Freedman J,
    2. Crankshaw TL,
    3. Mutambara VM
    . Sexual and reproductive health of asylum seeking and refugee women in South Africa: understanding the determinants of vulnerability. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(1):1758440. doi:10.1080/26410397.2020.1758440. pmid:32425112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Urquia ML,
    2. Glazier RH,
    3. Gagnon AJ,
    4. et al
    ; ROAM Collaboration. Disparities in pre‐eclampsia and eclampsia among immigrant women giving birth in six industrialised countries. BJOG. 2014;121(12):1492–1500. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12758. pmid:24758368
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Vik ES,
    2. Aasheim V,
    3. Schytt E,
    4. Small R,
    5. Moster D,
    6. Nilsen RM
    . Stillbirth in relation to maternal country of birth and other migration related factors: a population-based study in Norway. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):5. doi:10.1186/s12884-018-2140-3. pmid:30611227
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Almeida LM,
    2. Caldas J,
    3. Ayres-de-Campos D,
    4. Salcedo-Barrientos D,
    5. Dias S
    . Maternal healthcare in migrants: a systematic review. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(8):1346–1354. doi:10.1007/s10995-012-1149-x. pmid:23334357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hasstedt K,
    2. Desai S,
    3. Ansari-Thomas Z
    . Immigrant Women’s Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Coverage and Care in the United States. Guttmacher Institute; 2018. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/11/immigrant-womens-access-sexual-and-reproductive-health-coverage-and-care-united
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cheng IH,
    2. Advocat J,
    3. Vasi S,
    4. et al
    . A Rapid Review of Evidence-Based Information, Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Addressing the Health Needs of Refugees and Migrants: Report to the World Health Organization. 2018. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/publications/a-rapid-review-of-evidence-based-information-health-of-refugees-and-migrantsf2d00add-c78a-4fd6-9b51-bf7c033b81d4.pdf
  9. 9.↵
    1. Warren E,
    2. Post N,
    3. Hossain M,
    4. Blanchet K,
    5. Roberts B
    . Systematic review of the evidence on the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health interventions in humanitarian crises. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e008226. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008226. pmid:26685020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Jennings L,
    2. George AS,
    3. Jacobs T,
    4. Blanchet K,
    5. Singh NS
    . A forgotten group during humanitarian crises: a systematic review of sexual and reproductive health interventions for young people including adolescents in humanitarian settings. Confl Health. 2019;13(1):57. doi:10.1186/s13031-019-0240-y. pmid:31788022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Singh NS,
    2. Aryasinghe S,
    3. Smith J,
    4. Khosla R,
    5. Say L,
    6. Blanchet K
    . A long way to go: a systematic review to assess the utilisation of sexual and reproductive health services during humanitarian crises. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(2):e000682. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000682. pmid:29736272
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Singh NS,
    2. Smith J,
    3. Aryasinghe S,
    4. Khosla R,
    5. Say L,
    6. Blanchet K
    . Evaluating the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health services during humanitarian crises: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199300. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199300. pmid:29980147
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    International Organization for Migration (IOM). Glossary on Migration. IOM; 2019. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml_34_glossary.pdf
  14. 14.↵
    1. Starrs AM,
    2. Ezeh AC,
    3. Barker G,
    4. et al
    . Accelerate progress—sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: report of the Guttmacher– Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2018;391(10140):2642–2692. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30293-9. pmid:29753597
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Moreno MA,
    2. Molina N
    . La intervención social como objeto de estudio: discursos, prácticas, problematizaciones y propuestas. Athenea Digit. 2018;18(3):e2055. doi:10.5565/rev/athenea.2055
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Higgins JPT,
    2. Green S
    , eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://es.cochrane.org/sites/es.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Manual_Cochrane_510_reduit.pdf
  17. 17.↵
    STROBE. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.strobe-statement.org/
  18. 18.↵
    The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Checklist for Qualitative Research. JBI; 2017. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Qualitative_Research2017_0.pdf
  19. 19.↵
    Reproductive health. Mae Tao Clinic. Updated August 21, 2019. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://maetaoclinic.org/our-services/health-services/reproductive-health/
  20. 20.↵
    1. Fuentes-Afflick E,
    2. Hessol NA,
    3. Bauer T,
    4. et al
    . Use of prenatal care by Hispanic women after welfare reform. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(1):151–160. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000191299.24469.1b. pmid:16394053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Raheel H,
    2. Karim MS,
    3. Saleem S,
    4. Bharwani S
    . Knowledge, attitudes and practices of contraception among Afghan refugee women in Pakistan: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48760. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048760. pmid:23133658
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Purdin S,
    2. Khan T,
    3. Saucier R
    . Reducing maternal mortality among Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(1):82–85. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.12.021. pmid:19232603
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Truppa C,
    2. Leresche E,
    3. Fuller AF,
    4. et al
    . Utilization of primary health care services among Syrian refugee and Lebanese women targeted by the ICRC program in Lebanon: a cross-sectional study. Confl Health. 2019;13(1):7. doi:10.1186/s13031-019-0190-4. pmid:30923560
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Tousaw E,
    2. La RK,
    3. Arnott G,
    4. Chinthakanan O,
    5. Foster AM
    . “Without this program, women can lose their lives”: migrant women’s experiences with the Safe Abortion Referral Programme in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(51):58–68. doi:10.1080/09688080.2017.1392220. pmid:29210341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Tousaw E,
    2. Moo SNHG,
    3. Arnott G,
    4. Foster AM
    . “It is just like having a period with back pain”: exploring women’s experiences with community-based distribution of misoprostol for early abortion on the Thailand–Burma border. Contraception. 2018;97(2):122–129. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.015. pmid:28780239
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. McGinn T,
    2. Allen K
    . Improving refugees’ reproductive health through literacy in Guinea. Glob Public Health. 2006;1(3):229–248. doi:10.1080/17441690600680002. pmid:19153909
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Rosenberg JS,
    2. Bakomeza D
    . Let’s talk about sex work in humanitarian settings: piloting a rights-based approach to working with refugee women selling sex in Kampala. Reprod Health Matters. 2017;25(51):95–102. doi:10.1080/09688080.2017.1405674. pmid:29231800
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Howard N,
    2. Woodward A,
    3. Souare Y,
    4. et al
    . Reproductive health for refugees by refugees in Guinea III: maternal health. Confl Health. 2011;5(1):5. doi:10.1186/1752-1505-5-5. pmid:21486433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Stevens A,
    2. Gilder ME,
    3. Moo P,
    4. et al
    . Folate supplementation to prevent birth abnormalities: evaluating a community-based participatory action plan for refugees and migrant workers on the Thailand-Myanmar border. Public Health. 2018;161:83–89. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2018.04.009. pmid:29935473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Global Abortion Policies Database. World Health Organization. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/
  31. 31.↵
    State legislation tracker: major developments in sexual & reproductive health. Guttmacher Institute. Updated November 15, 2022. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kates J,
    2. Moss K
    . What Is the Scope of the Mexico City Policy: Assessing Abortion Laws in Countries That Receive U.S. Global Health Assistance. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2017. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/what-is-the-scope-of-the-mexico-city-policy-assessing-abortion-laws-in-countries-that-receive-u-s-global-health-assistance
  33. 33.↵
    1. Maruf F,
    2. Tappis H,
    3. Lu E,
    4. Yaqubi GS,
    5. Stekelenburg J,
    6. Akker T van den
    . Health facility capacity to provide postabortion care in Afghanistan: a cross-sectional study. Reprod Health. Published online 2019:1–24. doi:10.21203/rs.2.18903/v1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.
    1. Fathallah Z
    . Moral work and the construction of abortion networks: women’s access to safe abortion in Lebanon. Health Hum Rights J. 2019;21(2):21–31. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2019/12/moral-work-and-the-construction-of-abortion-networks-womens-access-to-safe-abortion-in-lebanon/
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.
    NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation. Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States. 21st ed. NARAL; 2012. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2012-Who-Decides.pdf
  36. 36.
    Center for Reproductive Rights. Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States: A Shadow Report. Center for Reproductive Rights; 2006. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/US-HR-Comittee-2006.pdf
  37. 37.↵
    1. Chaturachinda K,
    2. Boonthai N
    . Unsafe abortion: an inequity in health care, Thailand perspective. J Popul Soc Stud. 2017;25(3):287–297. doi:10.25133/JPSSv25n3.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Camara M,
    2. Camara A,
    3. Camara N
    . The healthcare system in Africa: the case of Guinea. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2015;2(4):685–689. doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20150933
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.
    1. Ramesh M,
    2. Wu X
    . Realigning public and private health care in southeast Asia. Pac Rev. 2008;21(2):171–187. doi:10.1080/09512740801990238
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.
    1. Kronfol NM
    . Rebuilding of the Lebanese health care system: health sector reforms. East Mediterr Health J. 2006;12(3–4):459–473.pmid:17037717
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.
    1. El-Jardali F,
    2. Fadlallah R,
    3. Matar L
    . Primary Health Care Systems (PRIMASYS): Comprehensive Case Study from Lebanon. WHO; 2017. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341171
  42. 42.
    1. Woolhandler S,
    2. Himmelstein DU,
    3. Ahmed S,
    4. et al
    . Public policy and health in the Trump era. Lancet. 2021;397(10275):705–753. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32545-9. pmid:33581802
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Jjuuko A
    Tumwesige Ateenyi F du Toit L Mwebaza E Zalwango F Nanyange J. Legal Regulation of Sex Work in Uganda: Exploring the Current Trends and Their Impact on the Human Rights of Sex Workers. Jjuuko A, ed. Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum; 2016.
  44. 44.↵
    1. Ross R,
    2. Fagan T,
    3. Dutta A
    . Is Health Insurance Coverage Associated with Improved Family Planning Access? A Review of Household Survey Data from Seven FP2020 Countries. Palladium, Health Policy Plus; 2018. Accessed December 1, 2022. http://www.healthpolicyplus.com/ns/pubs/10253-10458_FPUHCReview.pdf
  45. 45.↵
    1. Were LPO,
    2. Were E,
    3. Wamai R,
    4. Hogan J,
    5. Galarraga O
    . Effects of social health insurance on access and utilization of obstetric health services: results from HIV+ pregnant women in Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):87. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-8186-y. pmid:31959153
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Comfort AB,
    2. Peterson LA,
    3. Hatt LE
    . Effect of health insurance on the use and provision of maternal health services and maternal and neonatal health outcomes: a systematic review. J Health Popul Nutr. 2013;31(4)(Suppl 2):81–105. doi:10.3329/jhpn.v31i4.2361. pmid:24992805
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Wang W,
    2. Temsah G,
    3. Mallick L
    . The impact of health insurance on maternal health care utilization: evidence from Ghana, Indonesia and Rwanda. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(3):366–375. doi:10.1093/heapol/czw135. pmid:28365754
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Chiarenza A,
    2. Dauvrin M,
    3. Chiesa V,
    4. Baatout S,
    5. Verrept H
    . Supporting access to healthcare for refugees and migrants in European countries under particular migratory pressure. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):513. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4353-1. pmid:31337406
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Ameh CA,
    2. Mdegela M,
    3. White S,
    4. van den Broek N
    . The effectiveness of training in emergency obstetric care: a systematic literature review. Health Policy Plan. 2019;34(4):257–270. doi:10.1093/heapol/czz028. pmid:31056670
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Gabrysch S,
    2. Nesbitt RC,
    3. Schoeps A,
    4. et al
    . Does facility birth reduce maternal and perinatal mortality in Brong Ahafo, Ghana? A secondary analysis using data on 119 244 pregnancies from two cluster-randomised controlled trials. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(8):e1074–e1087. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30165-2. pmid:31303295
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Mengistu T,
    2. Berruti A,
    3. Krivelyova A,
    4. Swor M,
    5. Waite R,
    6. Maro G
    . Cost of providing emergency obstetric care in Tanzania’s Kigoma region. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(4):e1510–e1519. doi:10.1002/hpm.2820. pmid:31270861
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Banke-Thomas A,
    2. Wilson-Jones M,
    3. Madaj B,
    4. van den Broek N
    . Economic evaluation of emergency obstetric care training: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):403. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1586-z. pmid:29202731
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). Health Worker Roles in Providing Safe Abortion Care and Post-Abortion Contraception. WHO; 2015. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/181041
  54. 54.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). Medical Management of Abortion. WHO; 2018. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/278968/9789241550406-eng.pdf
  55. 55.↵
    1. Zurbriggen R,
    2. Keefe-Oates B,
    3. Gerdts C
    . Accompaniment of second-trimester abortions: the model of the feminist Socorrista network of Argentina. Contraception. 2018;97(2):108–115. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2017.07.170. pmid:28801052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Changing Relationships in the Health Care Context: The Uruguayan Model for Reducing Risk and Harm of Unsafe Abortions. PAHO; 2012. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2013/Publication-EN-BP-Uruguay-2012.pdf
  57. 57.↵
    1. Ngo TD,
    2. Park MH,
    3. Shakura H,
    4. Free C
    . Comparación de la efectividad, la seguridad y la aceptación de los abortos médicos practicados en el domicilio con aquellos realizados en la clínica: Una revisión sistemática. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(5):360–370. doi:10.2471/BLT.10.084046. pmid:21556304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Endler M,
    2. Lavelanet A,
    3. Cleeve A,
    4. Ganatra B,
    5. Gomperts R,
    6. Gemzell-Danielsson K
    . Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2019;126(9):1094–1102. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15684. pmid:30869829
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Lince-Deroche N,
    2. Fetters T,
    3. Sinanovic E,
    4. Devjee J,
    5. Moodley J,
    6. Blanchard K
    . The costs and cost effectiveness of providing first-trimester, medical and surgical safe abortion services in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174615. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174615. pmid:28369061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Hunter C,
    2. Jensen J,
    3. Imeah B,
    4. McCarron M,
    5. Clark M
    . A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of mifepristone–misoprostol medical abortions in the first year at the Regina General Hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021;43(2):211–218. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2020.08.008. pmid:33153943
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Consolidated Guideline on Self-Care Interventions for Health - Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. WHO; 2019. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325480/9789241550550-eng.pdf
  62. 62.↵
    1. Chamberlain C,
    2. O’Mara-Eves A,
    3. Porter J,
    4. et al
    . Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2020(3):CD001055. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub5. pmid:28196405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Banerjee SK,
    2. Andersen KL,
    3. Warvadekar J,
    4. Pearson E
    . Effectiveness of a behavior change communication intervention to improve knowledge and perceptions about abortion in Bihar and Jharkhand, India. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013;39(03):142–152. doi:10.1363/3914213. pmid:24135046
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Blanc AK
    . The effect of power in sexual relationships on sexual and reproductive health: an examination of the evidence. Stud Fam Plann. 2001;32(3):189–213. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4465.2001.00189.x. pmid:11677692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Lassi ZS,
    2. Bhutta ZA
    . Community-based intervention packages for reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality and improving neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(3):CD007754. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007754.pub3. pmid:25803792
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Von Roenne A,
    2. Von Roenne F,
    3. Kollie S,
    4. Swaray Y,
    5. Sondorp E,
    6. Borchert M
    . Reproductive health services for refugees by refugees: an example from Guinea. Disasters. 2010;34(1):16–29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01112.x. pmid:19459901
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Araujo JDO,
    2. Souza FM,
    3. Proença R,
    4. Bastos ML,
    5. Trajman A,
    6. Faerstein E
    . Prevalence of sexual violence among refugees: a systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2019;53:78. doi:10.11606/s1518-8787.2019053001081. pmid:31553381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Interventions to Improve the Reproductive Health of Undocumented Female Migrants and Refugees in Protracted Situations: A Systematic Review
Silvana Larrea-Schiavon, Lucía M. Vázquez-Quesada, Lindsay R. Bartlett, Nayeli Lam-Cervantes, Pooja Sripad, Isabel Vieitez, Liliana Coutiño-Escamilla
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2022, 10 (6) e2100418; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00418
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

Subjects