4.6 Review

Health and well-being issues of Nepalese migrant workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Malaysia: a systematic review

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038439

关键词

public health; epidemiology; health policy

资金

  1. Research England's institutional allocation from the Global Challenges Research Fund [G2626]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To summarise the evidence on health and well-being of Nepalese migrant workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Malaysia. Design Systematic review. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Global Health databases. Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible if they: (1) included Nepalese migrant workers aged 18 or older working in the GCC countries or Malaysia or returnee migrant workers from these countries; (2) were primary studies that investigated health and well-being status/issues; and (3) were published in English language before 8 May 2020. Study appraisal All included studies were critically appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute study specific tools. Results A total of 33 studies were eligible for inclusion; 12 studies were conducted in Qatar, 8 in Malaysia, 9 in Nepal, 2 in Saudi Arabia and 1 each in UAE and Kuwait. In majority of the studies, there was a lack of disaggregated data on demographic characteristics of Nepalese migrant workers. Nearly half of the studies (n=16) scored as 'high' quality and the rest (n=17) as 'moderate' quality. Five key health and well-being related issues were identified in this population: (1) occupational hazards; (2) sexual health; (3) mental health; (4) healthcare access and (5) infectious diseases. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive review of the health and well-being of Nepalese migrant workers in the GCC countries and Malaysia. This review highlights an urgent need to identify and implement policies and practices across Nepal and destination countries to protect the health and well-being of migrant workers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据