For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
3
views
40
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      407
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the refugee population: a rapid review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims:

          This is a rapid review examining the available evidence about the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on the refugee population.

          Methods:

          A search in the databases such as PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was conducted and all relevant original articles, letters, and editorial and policy papers were included.

          Results:

          From 208 publications matching the search criteria, 36 were included. These publications were categorized into three distinct domains: Public Health, Policies and Financing, and Technology. Our findings revealed that the situation of the refugee population has worsened during the pandemic. Difficulty accessing healthcare, violation of human rights, lack of access to technology devices, unfavorable government policies, and economic crisis were the most important aspects impacted by COVID-19.

          Conclusion:

          Governments, health managers, health professionals, and policy makers should be aware of refugees’ problems during the pandemic to provide immediate solutions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach

          Sara D Khangura, Kristin J Konnyu, Rob Cushman … (2012)
          Background Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program. Methods The KTA research program is a two-year project designed to develop and assess the impact of a regional knowledge infrastructure that supports evidence-informed decision making by regional managers and stakeholders. As part of this program, we have developed evidence summaries - our form of rapid review - which have come to be a flagship component of this project. Our eight-step approach for producing evidence summaries has been developed iteratively, based on evidence (where available), experience and knowledge user feedback. The aim of our evidence summary approach is to deliver quality evidence that is both timely and user-friendly. Results From November 2009 to March 2011 we have produced 11 evidence summaries on a diverse range of questions identified by our knowledge users. Topic areas have included questions of clinical effectiveness to questions on health systems and/or health services. Knowledge users have reported evidence summaries to be of high value in informing their decisions and initiatives. We continue to experiment with incorporating more of the established methods of systematic reviews, while maintaining our capacity to deliver a final product in a timely manner. Conclusions The evolution of the KTA rapid review evidence summaries has been a positive one. We have developed an approach that appears to be addressing a need by knowledge users for timely, user-friendly, and trustworthy evidence and have transparently reported these methods here for the wider rapid review and scientific community.
          Article 0 comments Cited 245 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews

            Rebecca Ganann, Donna Ciliska, Helen Thomas (2010)
            Background Policy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results. Methods A comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25). Results Rapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal. Conclusions This review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.
            Article 0 comments Cited 119 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Global call to action for inclusion of migrants and refugees in the COVID-19 response

              Miriam Orcutt, Parth Patel, Rachel Burns … (2020)
              Lancet Migration 1 calls for migrants and refugees to be urgently included in responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 2 Many of these populations live, travel, and work in conditions where physical distancing and recommended hygiene measures are impossible because of poor living conditions 3 and great economic precarity. This global public health emergency highlights the exclusion and multiple barriers to health care 4 that are faced by migrants and refugees, among whom COVID-19 threatens to have rapid and devastating effects. 5 From an enlightened self-interest perspective, measures to control the outbreak of COVID-19 will only be successful if all populations are included in the national and international responses. Moreover, excluding migrants and refugees contradicts the commitment to leave no one behind and the ethics of justice that underpin public health. Principles of solidarity, human rights, and equity must be central to the COVID-19 response; otherwise the world risks leaving behind those who are most marginalised. Join our global call to action for the inclusion of migrants and refugees in the COVID-19 response (panel ). Panel Lancet Migration's immediate actions urged in response to COVID-19 Urgent universal and equitable access to health systems, preparedness, and response Access should exist for migrant and refugee populations, regardless of age, gender, or migration status, including the immediate suspension of laws and prohibitive fees that limit access to health-care services and economic support programmes. Inclusion of migrant and refugee populations in health protection responses Immediate responses should include the transfer of people held in overcrowded reception, transit, and detention facilities to safer living conditions; suspension of deportations and upholding the principle of non-refoulement; and urgent relocation of and family reunification for unaccompanied minors. Responsible, transparent, and migrant-inclusive public information strategies Strategies should include regular, accurate, and linguistically and culturally appropriate public communication and information sharing, alongside community mobilisation. Confronting racism and prejudice with a zero-tolerance approach should be at the core of government and societal action.
              Article 0 comments Cited 85 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                E Fernández-García: (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Title: Perspectives in Public Health
                Abbreviated Title: Perspect Public Health
                Publisher: SAGE Publications
                ISSN (Print): 1757-9139
                ISSN (Electronic): 1757-9147
                Publication date Created: July 2023
                Publication date (Electronic): June 01 2022
                Publication date (Print): July 2023
                Volume: 143
                Issue: 4
                Pages: 225-241
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Group PAIDI-CTS 1050 Complex Care, Chronicity and Health Outcomes, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
                [2 ]Research Group CTS 969 Innovation in HealthCare and Social Determinants of Health, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
                [3 ]Research Group PAIDI-CTS 1050 Complex Care, Chronicity and Health Outcomes, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, University of Seville, Street Avenzoar 9, 41009 Seville, Spain
                [4 ]School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil
                Article
                DOI: 10.1177/17579139221093159
                SO-VID: 0cd68569-16f4-4958-9746-c62a40f23212
                Copyright © © 2023
                License:

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content407

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors265

                See all reference authors