8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Racialized migrant women’s discrimination in maternal care: a scoping review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Despite equality and quality being the core of good healthcare, racial and ethnic inequalities continue to persist. Racialized groups, including racialized migrant women, experience various forms of discrimination—particularly during maternal care encounters, where intersectional forms of discrimination may occur. Experiences of discrimination in maternal care have been associated with poor health-seeking behavior and adverse maternal health outcomes. However, research on racialized migrant women’s discrimination in maternal care is limited. This scoping review aims to give an overview of the state of current research on the discriminatory experiences of racialized migrant women when utilizing maternal healthcare and its gaps to ensure equity in global maternal healthcare.

          Methodology

          This scoping review mapped out all available English-language scientific empirical literature published between 2012 and 2023. All authors agreed on the inclusion criteria. Collecting, charting, and reviewing the included material were done using the 2018 Preferred Reporting Items for reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The search strategy included electronic databases, such as Pubmed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsycInfo.

          Results

          A total of 57 articles were included and analyzed. The majority were qualitative and conducted in European and North American countries. None of the included article’s aims originally intended to focus on discrimination. However, their findings exposed the many ways racialized migrant women experienced discrimination when using maternal healthcare services—from accessibility problems, non-utilization of interpreters, and untimely and delayed care to disrespect, abuse, and differential care. Racialized migrant women’s discrimination resulted in a lack of agency and being excluded from decision-making.

          Conclusions

          While the included articles allude to some issues related to discrimination in maternal healthcare experienced by racialized migrant women, this review delineated knowledge gaps warranting discussion. Few articles focus on and conceptualize discrimination from a racialized lens in maternal healthcare. A limited geographical scope in research and knowledge generation on discrimination and racialization exist in this field as does a lack of sufficient articles on discrimination and racism from healthcare personnel. Lastly, many of the existing studies lack an intersectional lens in exploring discrimination in maternal care against racialized migrant women.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-025-02384-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                fos@du.se
                Journal
                Int J Equity Health
                Int J Equity Health
                International Journal for Equity in Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-9276
                20 January 2025
                20 January 2025
                2025
                : 24
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, ( https://ror.org/000hdh770) Falun, 79 182 Sweden
                [2 ]Sustainability Learning and Research Center (SWEDESD), Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, ( https://ror.org/048a87296) Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala, 75 185 Sweden
                [3 ]Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, ( https://ror.org/048a87296) Box 527, Uppsala, 75 120 Sweden
                [4 ]King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, ( https://ror.org/0220mzb33) Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) IoPPN, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB England
                [5 ]Black Thrive Global CIC 167 – 169 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5PF England
                Article
                2384
                10.1186/s12939-025-02384-8
                11744886
                39828704
                d119880a-d92d-4a99-af04-852fa226dbf5
                © The Author(s) 2025

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 16 October 2024
                : 9 January 2025
                Funding
                Funded by: Dalarna University
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2025

                Health & Social care
                migrant women,racialized,discrimination,maternal healthcare,barriers,intersectionality,racism

                Comments

                Comment on this article