Double burden of malnutrition among migrants and refugees in developed countries: A mixed-methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migrants and refugees living in high income countries (HICs) have an increased risk of developing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) due to malnutrition at different stages over their life course. This systematic review aims to examine the double burden of malnutrition (DBM) among migrants and refugees in developed countries. This review was informed by the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed observational studies that focused on the DBM in refugee or migrant populations; and were written in English with full texts available and accessible. A combination of keywords was used to search 8 electronic bibliographic databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, and web of science. There is a paucity of research into the DBM among migrants and refugees residing in HICs. Of a total of 2344 articles retrieved from eight databases, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies showed the co-existence of some form of undernutrition and overnutrition within the same population. Overnutrition (overweight and obesity) in the studied populations ranged from 11.1% to 42% while undernutrition (stunting, wasting and underweight) ranged from 0.3% to 17%. Standard measures for anthropometry as determined by World Health Organization (WHO) were used for data collection in all included studies. A piloted form informed by the Cochrane Public Health Group Data Extraction and Assessment Template was used in the extraction of data from retrieved studies. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the study assessment tools of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and showed that all studies were of fair quality. Interventions that simultaneously target more than one form of malnutrition especially amongst migrant and refugee populations must be implemented for policy solutions to be effective. This review has been registered by the PROSPERO international prospective registry for systematic reviews, reference CRD42020192416.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".