See Acknowledgements section for members of ROAM Collaboration.
International migration and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis
Article first published online: 14 SEP 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology
Volume 25, Issue 6, pages 575–592, November 2011
How to Cite
Gagnon, A. J., McDermott, S., Rigol-Chachamovich, J., Bandyopadhyay, M., Stray-Pedersen, B., Stewart, D. and for the ROAM Collaboration (2011), International migration and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 25: 575–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2011.01230.x
- Issue published online: 10 OCT 2011
- Article first published online: 14 SEP 2011
- gestational diabetes mellitus;
Gagnon AJ, McDermott S, Rigol-Chachamovich J, Bandyopadhyay M, Stray-Pedersen B, Stewart D, for the ROAM Collaboration. International migration and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2011; 25: 575–592.
Influxes of migrant women of childbearing age to receiving countries have made their perinatal health status a key priority for many governments. The international research collaboration Reproductive Outcomes And Migration (ROAM) reviewed published studies to assess whether migrants in countries of resettlement have a greater risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) than women in receiving countries. A systematic review of the literature from Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL from 1990 to 2009 included studies of migrant women and GDM. Studies were excluded if there was no cross-border movement or comparison group or if the receiving country was not the country of resettlement. Studies were assessed for quality, analysed descriptively and meta-analysed. Twenty-four reports (representing >120 000 migrants) met our inclusion criteria. Migrants were described primarily by geographic origin; other relevant aspects (e.g. time in country, language fluency) were rarely studied. Migrants' results for GDM were worse than those for receiving-country women in 79% of all studies. Meta-analyses showed that, compared with receiving-country women, Caribbean, African, European and Northern European women were at greater risk of GDM, while North Africans and North Americans had risks similar to receiving-country women. Although results of the 31 comparisons of Asians, East Africans or non-Australian Oceanians were too heterogeneous to provide a single GDM risk estimate for migrant women, only one comparison was below the receiving-country comparison group, all others presented a higher risk estimate. The majority of women migrants to resettlement countries are at greater risk for GDM than women resident in receiving countries. Research using clear, specific migrant definitions, adjusting for relevant risk factors and including other aspects of migration experiences is needed to confirm and understand these findings.