1 / 18

Migration and perinatal health surveillance: An international Delphi survey

Migration and perinatal health surveillance: An international Delphi survey. Anita Gagnon, Jennifer Zeitlin, Meg Zimbeck for the ROAM collaboration & in conjunction with EURO-PERISTAT. Sophie Alexander, Université libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) B é atrice Blondel, INSERM (France)

trevor
Download Presentation

Migration and perinatal health surveillance: An international Delphi survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Migration and perinatal health surveillance:An international Delphi survey Anita Gagnon, Jennifer Zeitlin, Meg Zimbeck for the ROAM collaboration & in conjunction with EURO-PERISTAT

  2. Sophie Alexander, Université libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) Béatrice Blondel, INSERM (France) Simone Buitendijk, TNO Institute – Prevention and Care (Netherlands) Marie Desmeules, Public Health Agency of Canada Dominico DiLallo, Agency for Public Health – Rome (Italy) Anita Gagnon (co-leader), McGill University/MUHC, (Canada) Mika Gissler, STAKES (Finland) Richard Glazier, Inst. For Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Canada) Maureen Heaman, University of Manitoba (Canada) Dineke Korfker, TNO Institute – Prevention and Care (Netherlands) Alison Macfarlane, City University of London (UK) Edward Ng, Statistics Canada Carolyn Roth, Keele University (UK) Rhonda Small (co-leader), LaTrobe University (Australia) Donna Stewart, Univ. Hlth Netwk of Toronto/U of T (Canada) Babill Stray-Pederson, University of Oslo (Norway) Marcelo Urquia, Inst. For Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Canada) Siri Vangen, Dept Ob/Gyn of The National Hospital of Norway Jennifer Zeitlin, INSERM and EURO-PERISTAT (France) Meg Zimbeck, INSERM and EURO-PERISTAT (France) ROAM = Reproductive Outcomes And Migration: An international research collaboration:

  3. Funding acknowledgements • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) - International Opportunities Program • Start-up support: Immigration et métropoles (Center of Excellence in Immigration Studies - Montreal) • Career support to AJG: Le fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ) • Visiting Scientist Scholarship to AJG: l'Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM, France)

  4. Background • Perinatal health of migrant women is a priority for many governments • No consensus exists on indicators for monitoring migration and perinatal health • ROAM began its work by undertaking an extensive review of the literature: • One purpose was to inventory migrant terms and definitions used to study this issue • This inventory formed the basis from which the expertise of researchers specializing in this topic was sought to identify the most appropriate indicators to be used through a Delphi process

  5. Objectives for this project • To achieve consensus on migration indicators to be used internationally for: • Perinatal health surveillance indicator sets & • Routine population-based perinatal surveys • To obtain suggestions on migration indicators and definitions to be used for research projects.

  6. Methods:Modified Delphi process • A formalized consensus method: • A panel of people respond to successive series of questionnaires with the aim of achieving a consensus on key principles/proposals • Participants rank items by priority or importance; can give comments • Participants: • 38 perinatal clinicians, epidemiologists, experts in health information systems from EURO-PERISTAT, ROAM, and others (recommended by ROAM) • 22 countries including Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada • Questionnaires: • Derived from the ROAM systematic review of literature • Each participant completed between 1 and 3 questionnaires (“rounds” of questionnaires) • Summary results of each preceding round of questionnaires were provided in conjunction with a new set of questions

  7. Results

  8. Importance of indicator • Concepts considered important/essential by >50%: • Country of birth • The time that the migrant has been in the country (measured by: recent immigrant, length of time in country, age at migration and year of migration) • Immigration status (undocumented, irregular migrant, immigration status, asylum seeker, refugee) • Language fluency • Ethnicity

  9. Feasibility of indicator • Generally low • Country of birth had the highest rating • 65% thought this indicator could be collected in data registries with no or minor modifications • 69% in routine population surveys • In general, feasibility was considered to be higher in routine population surveys. • Poor feasibility for: undocumented/ irregular status, asylum-seeker/refugee status, ethnicity, receiving country language fluency

  10. Consensus to reduce the migration indicator list • Agreement with the reduced list of indicators to consider = 79% • Country of birth • Recent immigrant • Immigration status • Language • Ethnicity

  11. Recommendations:Core indicator - routine data collection

  12. Recommendations:Recommended indicator - routine data collection

  13. Recommendations:Recommended indicator - specific studies or added to routine data collection

  14. Recommendations:Recommended indicator - specific studies or added to routine data collection (cont’d)

  15. Additional info to be provided when issuing common recommendations: Ethics • Collecting and presenting data on migration requires special attention to ethics and the way that these data are used and interpreted in my country: Yes = 70% No = 18% No response = 12% • Comments: • Useful for healthcare providers not to know about legal status of patients – can’t refuse them treatment • Several privacy laws apply • Info may be censored with small sample sizes • Using broader categories to report results may reduce “singling out” any particular group

  16. Additional info to be provided when issuing common recommendations: Ethics (cont’d) • Comments (cont’d): • Use of data on migrant groups is always a worry even when we are clear on our intentions regarding optimizing care… • We could be helping to create negative social stereotypes • Precautions to be taken: • Try to get government buy-in • Consult those upholding privacy regulations • Could ensure measuring aspects of health thought to be positive in migrants at the same time as measuring those that are negative • Be aware of the discourse… • Inform women of their privacy rights • Create institutions with legal mandates to collect this information • Include migrants in data interpretation and reporting

  17. Conclusions • Our group recommends: • Essential indicator to be used in international comparisons of migration and perinatal health be migrant country of birth • Perinatal mortality rates by migrant country of birth be presented for each source region (data not presented) • Time since arrival in receiving country be added to routine data collection • Studies be undertaken to complement routine data collection on: • immigration status • receiving country language fluency • ethnic origin as defined by maternal parents’ place of birth • As soon as available, present several perinatal indicators with the recommended migration indicators

  18. Thank you! anita.gagnon@mcgill.ca

More Related