我们一直在衡量移民的福利吗?移民福利的概念化:一个系统的回顾。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Salsawi Feleke Debela, Sheenagh McShane, Lauren Carpenter, Celia McMichael, Ankur Singh, Karen Block
{"title":"我们一直在衡量移民的福利吗?移民福利的概念化:一个系统的回顾。","authors":"Salsawi Feleke Debela, Sheenagh McShane, Lauren Carpenter, Celia McMichael, Ankur Singh, Karen Block","doi":"10.1007/s10903-025-01773-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Wellbeing is a widely used concept yet lacks a universal definition and standardized measurement. Migrants, especially those forcibly displaced, face challenges that impact their quality of life and wellbeing. To understand how the wellbeing of people who migrate from low/middle-income countries to middle/high-income countries has been conceptualized, defined, and measured. Four databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched. Two researchers independently screened all articles, with narrative synthesis and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist used for analysis. The search returned 5,610 articles, with 126 included in this review. Of these 126 articles, 89 did not explicitly define nor conceptualise wellbeing. Forty-three measurement tools were used to measure the wellbeing of 281,478 migrants in more than 35 countries. Seven tools were used in three or more articles, two of which were not specifically designed for wellbeing measurement. Two tools Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and WHO Quality of life Brief (WHOQoL-BREF) had satisfactory COSMIN scores. Fewer than half (47.6%) of the articles reported translating tools into respondents' languages. Tools designed and developed in the context of Global North, middle-class populations, might not accurately measure wellbeing in migrant groups. This review highlights critical gaps in the way migrant wellbeing is measured. Without culturally informed tools, understanding of migrant wellbeing will remain fragmented, limiting development of effective and equitable public health interventions and policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Have We Been Measuring Migrant Wellbeing all Wrong? Conceptualizing Migrant Wellbeing: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Salsawi Feleke Debela, Sheenagh McShane, Lauren Carpenter, Celia McMichael, Ankur Singh, Karen Block\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10903-025-01773-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Wellbeing is a widely used concept yet lacks a universal definition and standardized measurement. Migrants, especially those forcibly displaced, face challenges that impact their quality of life and wellbeing. To understand how the wellbeing of people who migrate from low/middle-income countries to middle/high-income countries has been conceptualized, defined, and measured. Four databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched. Two researchers independently screened all articles, with narrative synthesis and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist used for analysis. The search returned 5,610 articles, with 126 included in this review. Of these 126 articles, 89 did not explicitly define nor conceptualise wellbeing. Forty-three measurement tools were used to measure the wellbeing of 281,478 migrants in more than 35 countries. Seven tools were used in three or more articles, two of which were not specifically designed for wellbeing measurement. Two tools Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and WHO Quality of life Brief (WHOQoL-BREF) had satisfactory COSMIN scores. Fewer than half (47.6%) of the articles reported translating tools into respondents' languages. Tools designed and developed in the context of Global North, middle-class populations, might not accurately measure wellbeing in migrant groups. This review highlights critical gaps in the way migrant wellbeing is measured. Without culturally informed tools, understanding of migrant wellbeing will remain fragmented, limiting development of effective and equitable public health interventions and policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-025-01773-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-025-01773-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

幸福是一个被广泛使用的概念,但缺乏一个普遍的定义和标准化的衡量标准。移徙者,特别是被迫流离失所者,面临着影响其生活质量和福祉的挑战。了解从低收入/中等收入国家移民到中等收入/高收入国家的人的福祉是如何被概念化、定义和衡量的。检索了四个数据库(MEDLINE、PubMed、EMBASE和PsycINFO)。两名研究人员独立筛选了所有文章,使用叙述性综合和基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)清单进行分析。检索结果为5610篇文章,其中126篇被纳入本综述。在这126篇文章中,89篇没有明确定义或概念化幸福。43种测量工具被用于测量超过35个国家的281478名移民的福祉。在三篇或三篇以上的文章中使用了七种工具,其中两篇并不是专门为幸福感测量而设计的。个人幸福指数(PWI)和世卫组织生活质量简表(WHOQoL-BREF)两种工具的COSMIN得分令人满意。不到一半(47.6%)的文章报告了将工具翻译成受访者的语言。在全球北方(中产阶级人口)的背景下设计和开发的工具,可能无法准确衡量移民群体的福祉。本综述突出了衡量移民福利方式的重大差距。如果没有了解文化的工具,对移徙者福祉的理解将仍然是支离破碎的,从而限制了制定有效和公平的公共卫生干预措施和政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Have We Been Measuring Migrant Wellbeing all Wrong? Conceptualizing Migrant Wellbeing: A Systematic Review.

Wellbeing is a widely used concept yet lacks a universal definition and standardized measurement. Migrants, especially those forcibly displaced, face challenges that impact their quality of life and wellbeing. To understand how the wellbeing of people who migrate from low/middle-income countries to middle/high-income countries has been conceptualized, defined, and measured. Four databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched. Two researchers independently screened all articles, with narrative synthesis and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist used for analysis. The search returned 5,610 articles, with 126 included in this review. Of these 126 articles, 89 did not explicitly define nor conceptualise wellbeing. Forty-three measurement tools were used to measure the wellbeing of 281,478 migrants in more than 35 countries. Seven tools were used in three or more articles, two of which were not specifically designed for wellbeing measurement. Two tools Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and WHO Quality of life Brief (WHOQoL-BREF) had satisfactory COSMIN scores. Fewer than half (47.6%) of the articles reported translating tools into respondents' languages. Tools designed and developed in the context of Global North, middle-class populations, might not accurately measure wellbeing in migrant groups. This review highlights critical gaps in the way migrant wellbeing is measured. Without culturally informed tools, understanding of migrant wellbeing will remain fragmented, limiting development of effective and equitable public health interventions and policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
104
期刊介绍: Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original research pertaining to immigrant health from contributors in many diverse fields including public health, epidemiology, medicine and nursing, anthropology, sociology, population research, immigration law, and ethics. The journal also publishes review articles, short communications, letters to the editor, and notes from the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信