MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097209499 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038388

Health risk behaviours among migrants by duration of residence: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3097209499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Berg, Nina‐Katri Gustafsson, Helena Honkaniemi, Sol Juárez

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsMedicineResidenceObservational studyMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINEDuration (music)Publication biasReporting biasProtocol (science)Grey literatureFamily medicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: International migrants' health has often been found to deteriorate in new countries, partly due to changes in health risk behaviours such as alcohol consumption, tobacco use, physical inactivity, and poor dietary habits. However, limited efforts have been made to comprehensively evaluate the extent to which migrants adopt unhealthy risk behaviours with longer duration of residence. This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarise evidence on international migrants' behavioural patterns by duration of residence in multiple country contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest databases will be searched for quantitative or mixed-method observational studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2019. Studies comparing foreign-born individuals by duration of residence will be included. Information on study characteristics, descriptive statistics and measures of effect will be extracted. All included studies will be quality assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The review will include narrative synthesis and, if sufficient and comparable data are available, random effects meta-analyses. The review will be conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since previously published information from peer-reviewed studies will be assessed. The results of this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. Other forms of dissemination will include communication to broader audiences using well-established channels, including through university-based press releases. Progress will be regularly updated on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews to ensure full transparency. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018108881.

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.028
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.009

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→