Sexual and reproductive health and rights of migrant women attending primary care in England: A population-based cohort study of 1.2 million individuals of reproductive age (2009-2018)

Background

Evidence on the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of migrants is lacking globally. We describe SRHR healthcare resource use and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) prescriptions for migrant versus non-migrant women attending primary care in England (2009-2018).

Methods

This population-based observational cohort study, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, included females living in England aged 15 to 49. Migration was defined using a validated codelist. Rates per 100 person years at risk (pyar) and adjusted rate ratios (RRs) were measured in migrants versus non-migrants for consultations related to all-causes, six exemplar SRHR outcomes, and LARC prescriptions. Proportions of migrants and non-migrants ever prescribed LARC were calculated.

Findings

There were 25,112,116 consultations across 1,246,353 eligible individuals. 98,214 (7.9 %) individuals were migrants. All-cause consultation rates were lower in migrants versus non-migrants (509 vs 583/100pyar;RR 0.9;95 %CI 0.9-0.9), as were consultations rates for emergency contraception (RR 0.7;95 %CI 0.7-0.7) and cervical screening (RR 0.96;95 %CI 0.95-0.97). Higher rates of consultations were found in migrants for abortion (RR 1.2;95 %CI 1.1-1.2) and management of fertility problems (RR 1.39;95 %CI 1.08-1.79). No significant difference was observed for chlamydia testing and domestic violence. Of 1,205,258 individuals eligible for contraception, the proportion of non-migrants ever prescribed LARC (12.2 %;135,047/1,107,894) was almost double that of migrants (6.91 %;6,728/97,364). Higher copper intrauterine devices prescription rates were found in migrants (RR 1.53;95 %CI 1.45-1.61), whilst hormonal LARC rates were lower for migrants: levonorgestrel intrauterine device (RR 0.63;95 %CI 0.60-0.66), subdermal implant (RR 0.72;95 %CI 0.69-0.75), and progesterone-only injection (RR 0.35;95 %CI 0.34-0.36).

Interpretation

Healthcare resource use differs between migrant and non-migrant women of reproductive age. Opportunities identified for tailored interventions include access to primary care, LARCs, emergency contraception and cervical screening. An inclusive approach to examining health needs is essential to actualise sexual and reproductive health as a human right.

Health on the Move (HOME) Study: Using a smartphone app to explore the health and wellbeing of migrants in the United Kingdom

Background/Aim: We have a limited understanding of the broader determinants of health of international migrants and how these change over time since migration to the United Kingdom (UK). To address this knowledge gap, we aim to conduct a prospective cohort study with data acquisition via a smartphone application (app). In this pilot study, we aim to 1) determine the feasibility of the use of an app for data collection in international migrants, 2) optimise app engagement by quantifying the impact of specific design features on the completion rates of survey questionnaires and on study retention, 3) gather preliminary profile health status data, to begin to examine how risk factors for health are distributed among migrants. Methods: We will recruit 275 participants through a social media campaign and through third sector organisations that work with or support migrants in the UK. Following consent and registration, data will be collected via surveys. To optimise app engagement and study retention, we will quantify the impact of specific design features (i.e. the frequency of survey requests, the time of day for app notifications, the frequency of notifications, and the wording of notifications) via micro-randomised process evaluations. The primary outcome for this study is survey completion rates with numerator as the number of surveys completed and denominator as the total number of available surveys. Secondary outcomes are study retention rates and ratings of interest after app usage. Ethics and dissemination: We have obtained approval to use consented patient identifiable data from the University College London Ethics Committee. Improving engagement with the app and gathering preliminary health profile data will help us identify accessibility and usability issues and other barriers to app and study engagement prior to moving to a larger study.