A narrative literature review on the health of migrant farm worker children in the USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive narrative review of the literature on migrant farm worker child and adolescent health. It highlights current health issues and suggests methods to improve research and clinical practices with this underserved and vulnerable population. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology for this narrative review included a search of articles published between 2000 and 2012. From the primary search, 76 articles met the search criteria. A secondary search revealed three additional articles. Findings – The various methodologies used in the current literature have limited rigorous analysis of the health of pediatric migrant populations. The findings highlight the complex factors that influence migrant pediatric health. Despite the many challenges migrant farm worker children and their families face, they exhibit enormous resilience and strengths that may help counterbalance these challenges. Study categories that emerged from the analysis include health perspectives and behaviors, occupational health, access to care, utilization and satisfaction with health services, health outcomes and health disparities, and oral health. This review provides a strong foundation from which to work toward improving migrant pediatric health. Originality/value – This paper provides an original review of the unique health needs and the complex factors influencing the health of migrant farm worker children and adolescents. This will be of value to clinicians and researchers since migrant farm worker families are part of communities across the country. It offers public health professionals insight into services and programs that can improve the health and well-being of children, families, and communities.

Interventions targeting the wellbeing of young people of migrant and refugee backgrounds: A systematic review of the literature

“…Overall, we found few high-quality evaluation research papers. A large proportion of existing studies are conceptual and descriptive, with a limited focus on specific migrant issues, populations, or settings (Barrie & Mendes, 2011;Botfield et al, 2016;Connor et al, 2014;Demazure et al, 2018;Ehntholt & Yule, 2006;Nocon et al, 2017;Streitwieser et al, 2018;Sullivan & Simonson, 2016;Tyrer & Fazel, 2014;Vossoughi et al, 2018). Also, the studies reviewed did not explicitly report any collaborative co-designed activities with communities, institutions and services including young migrants and refugees that are affected by the programmes offered (Graham, Kothari, & McCutcheon, 2018).…”

“…Drawing on the existing literature, a new synthesis of current evidence-based wellbeing promotion approaches for young migrants and refugees is warranted for a few reasons. Firstly, a large proportion of existing reviews are conceptual and descriptive, with a limited focus to specific migrant issues, populations, or settings (Barrie & Mendes, 2011;Botfield, Newman, & Zwi, 2016;Connor, Page Layne, & Ellis Hilb, 2014;Demazure, Gaultier, & Pinsault, 2018;Ehntholt & Yule, 2006;Nocon, Eberle-Sejari, Unterhitzenberger, & Rosner, 2017;Streitwieser, Loo, Ohorodnik, & Jeong, 2018;Sullivan & Simonson, 2016;Tyrer & Fazel, 2014;Vossoughi, Jackson, Gusler, & Stone, 2018). Secondly, there are insufficient numbers of rigorously designed and executed systematic reviews that also include a transparently reported study quality appraisal (Borsch et al, 2018;Botfield, Newman, Lenette, Albury, & Zwi, 2018;d'Abreu, Castro-Olivo, & Ura, 2019;Nakeyar, Esses, & Reid, 2018;Van Os, Zijlstra, Knorth, Post, & Kalverboer, 2018).…”

Interventions Targeting the Wellbeing of Migrant Youths: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…This review is warranted for at least two reasons. Firstly, a large proportion of existing reviews are conceptual and descriptive, with a focus limited to specific migrant issues, populations, or settings (Barrie & Mendes, 2011; Botfield et al, 2016; Connor et al, 2014; Demazure et al, 2018; Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Nocon et al, 2017; Streitwieser et al, 2019; Sullivan & Simonson, 2016; Tyrer & Fazel, 2014; Vossoughi et al, 2018). Secondly, there are few rigorously designed and executed systematic reviews that include a transparently reported study quality appraisal (Borsch et al, 2019; Botfield et al, 2018; D’Abreu et al, 2019; Nakeyar et al, 2018; van Os et al, 2018).…”