MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945394191 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30204-9

Occupational health outcomes among international migrant workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2945394191 on OpenAlexaff
Sally Hargreaves, Kieran Rustage, Laura B Nellums, Alys McAlpine, Nicola S. Pocock, Delan Devakumar, Robert W Aldridge, Ibrahim Abubakar, Kristina Langholz Kristensen, Jan Himmels, Jon S. Friedland, Cathy Zimmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersRosetrees TrustEconomic and Social Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious DiseasesWellcome Trust
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthMeta-analysisMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewMigrant workersEnvironmental healthGerontologyPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Globally, there are more than 150 million international migrant workers-individuals who are employed outside of their country of origin-comprising the largest international migrant group. A substantial number of migrants work in hazardous and exploitative environments, where they might be at considerable risk of injury and ill health. However, little data on occupational health outcomes of migrant workers exist, with which to inform global policy making and delivery of health services. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid Global Health, and PsychINFO databases for primary research published between Jan 1, 2008, and Jan 24, 2018, reporting occupational health outcomes among international migrant workers (defined as individuals who are or have been employed outside their country of origin), without language or geographical restrictions. We excluded studies containing mixed cohorts of migrants and native workers in which migrant data could not be disaggregated, and studies that did not explicitly report migrant status. The main outcome was prevalence of occupational health outcomes (defined as any injury, mortality, or physical or psychiatric morbidity due to an individual's work or workplace environment) among international migrant workers. Summary estimates were calculated using random-effects models. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099465. FINDINGS: =99·35%). INTERPRETATION: International migrant workers are at considerable risk of work-related ill health and injury, and their health needs are critically overlooked in research and policy. Governments, policy makers, and businesses must enforce and improve occupational health and safety measures, which should be accompanied by accessible, affordable, and appropriate health care and insurance coverage to meet the care needs of this important working population. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.028
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations350
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207