OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence of health interventions in addressing inequity among migrants.
METHODS: We adopted a two-stage searching approach to ensure the feasibility of this review. First, reviews of interventions for migrants were searched from five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE until June 2017. Second, full articles included in the identified reviews were retrieved. Primary studies included in the identified reviews were then evaluated as to whether they met the following criteria: experimental studies which include equity aspects as part of their outcome measurement, based on equity attributes defined by PROGRESS-Plus factors (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, and others). We analysed the information extracted from the selected articles based on the PRISMA-Equity guidelines and the PROGRESS-Plus factors.
RESULTS: Forty-nine reviews involving 1145 primary studies met the first-stage inclusion criteria. After exclusion of 764 studies, the remaining 381 experimental studies were assessed. Thirteen out of 381 experimental studies (3.41%) were found to include equity attributes as part of their outcome measurement. However, although some associations were found none of the included studies demonstrated the effect of the intervention on reducing inequity. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. The interventions included individual directed, community education and peer navigator-related interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence reveals that there is a paucity of studies assessing equity attributes of health interventions developed for migrant populations. This indicates that equity has not been receiving attention in these studies of migrant populations. More attention to equity-focused outcome assessment is needed to help policy-makers to consider all relevant outcomes for sound decision making concerning migrants.
METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we included 1,365 employees enrolled in the university's workplace health promotion program, a program conducted since 2008 and using data from the 2008-2013 follow-up period. Participants were permanent employees aged 35 years and above, with at least one follow up measurements and no change in antihypertensive medication during the study period. Baseline socio-demographic information was collected using a questionnaire while anthropometry measurements and resting blood pressure were collected during annual health screening. Changes in blood pressure over time were analyzed using a linear mixed model.
RESULTS: The systolic blood pressure in the hypertension subgroup decreased 2.36 mmHg per year (p<0.0001). There was also significant improvement in systolic blood pressure among the participants who were at risk of hypertension (-0.75 mmHg, p<0.001). The diastolic blood pressure among the hypertensive and at risk subgroups improved 1.76 mmHg/year (p<0.001) and 0.56 mmHg/year (p<0.001), respectively. However, there was no change in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure among participants in the healthy subgroup over the 6-year period.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that continuing participation in workplace health promotion program has the potential to improve blood pressure levels among employees.