19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Scoping Review to Assess Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes, Challenges and Recommendations in the Context of Climate Migration

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background: As growing numbers of people may be forced to migrate due to climate change and variability, it is important to consider the disparate impacts on health for vulnerable populations, including sexual and reproductive health (SRH). This scoping review aims to explore the relationship between climate migration and SRH.

          Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and Google for peer-reviewed and gray literature published before 2nd July 2021 in English that reported on SRH in the context of climate migration. Data were extracted using a piloted extraction tool and findings are reported in a narrative synthesis.

          Results: We screened 1,607 documents. Ten full-text publications were included for analysis: five peer-reviewed articles and five gray literature documents. Reported SRH outcomes focused on maternal health, access to family planning and antiretroviral therapy, sexual and gender-based violence, transactional sex, and early/forced marriage. Recommendations to improve SRH in the context of climate migration called for gender-transformative health systems, education and behavior change programmes, and the involvement of local women in policy planning and programme implementation.

          Discussion: While the disparate impacts of climate change and migration are well-established, primary data on the scope of impact due to climate migration is limited. The SRH outcomes reported in the literature focus on a relatively narrow range of SRH domains, emphasizing women and girls, over men. Achieving holistic and equitable SRH in the context of climate migration requires engaging all genders across the range of SRH outcomes and migration contexts. This review highlights the need for further empirical evidence on the effect of climate migration on SRH, with research that is context-specific and engages communities in order to reflect the heterogeneity of outcomes and impact in the climate-migration-SRH nexus.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

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

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Glob Womens Health
                Front Glob Womens Health
                Front. Glob. Womens Health
                Frontiers in Global Women's Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2673-5059
                15 October 2021
                2021
                : 2
                : 757153
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge University , Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [2] 2UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin , Dublin, Ireland
                [3] 3Institute for Global Health, University College London , London, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Women in Global Health , Washington, DC, United States
                [5] 5Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig University , Leipzig, Germany
                [6] 6EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London , London, United Kingdom
                [7] 7UCD Library, University College Dublin , Dublin, Ireland
                [8] 8Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre, London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine , London, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Jane Freedman, Université Paris 8, France

                Reviewed by: Mirjam Maria Van Weissenbruch, VU University Medical Center, Netherlands; Rasha Dabash, Ipas, United States

                *Correspondence: Kim Robin van Daalen krv22@ 123456cam.ac.uk

                This article was submitted to Maternal Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Global Women's Health

                †These authors share first authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fgwh.2021.757153
                8594026
                34816251
                f55c2e79-2409-427c-99b2-a11f99e6cef1
                Copyright © 2021 van Daalen, Dada, Issa, Chowdhury, Jung, Singh, Stokes, Orcutt and Singh.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 11 August 2021
                : 21 September 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 55, Pages: 10, Words: 7179
                Funding
                Funded by: Gates Cambridge Trust, doi 10.13039/501100005370;
                Award ID: OPP1144
                Categories
                Global Women's Health
                Mini Review

                climate migration,sexual health,reproductive health,climate change,scoping review

                Comments

                Comment on this article