Keywords
migrants, immigrant, elderly, later-life, old age, mental health, well-being, systematic review protocol
This article is included in the Human Migration Research gateway.
This article is included in the Sociology of Health gateway.
This article is included in the Dignity in Aging collection.
Migration is a milestone event in a person’s life, bringing with it the challenges of settling down in an unfamiliar environment. The age at which migration takes place and the way migrants negotiate their old and new world significantly impacts their mental health.
Thus, this systematic review seeks to analyse and summarize existing research detailing the contexts in which people migrate later in life and the associations between these contexts and social determinants of their mental health and well-being.
Seven databases including PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, Applied Social Sciences Index, Abstracts: ASSIA, Ageline, CINAHL, and Informit will be searched systematically for original journal articles published in English. In the first screening stage, the first reviewer (PB) will screen all titles and abstracts and mark all potentially eligible texts for full-text screening. The second reviewer (HM) will review the decisions made. Any potential conflicts will be resolved with discussion. Afterward, full texts of potentially eligible studies will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers (PB and HM). The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The thematic synthesis of the data will be performed using a hybrid approach incorporating deductive (framed against a customised social determinants of health framework) and inductive data-driven processes. The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Reg: CRD42022359881).
migrants, immigrant, elderly, later-life, old age, mental health, well-being, systematic review protocol
In the revised version of the manuscript, we have provided a clear operational definition of older unforced migrants, distinguishing them from forced migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. We have also expanded on the rationale for keeping the age cut off as 50 years and above. The rationale for the exclusion of studies in which the length of stay cannot be ascertained or is more than 5 years has been further clarified. Incorporating the reviewer's suggestions, a separate paragraph on the policy and practice implications of the review has been added. The initial plan of using the social determinants of health framework along with intersectionality as a lens has undergone a slight change in the revised draft. We decided to focus only on the social determinants of health framework and present the findings through a customized Social Determinants of Health framework delineating the individual, relational, and structural determinants of health.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Hong Liu
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lucy P Jordan
Demographic ageing is the defining feature of this century, associated with declines in fertility and increased life expectancy (Holecki et al., 2020). Adults above the age of 65 outnumber children below the age of 5, and by 2050, they are estimated to reach close to 2 billion, outnumbering adolescents as well (Segal, 2019). Additionally, the international migration of older adults has increased significantly. Globalisation processes and advances in communication technology not only accelerated the scale of international migration but also significantly altered the character of migration flows from permanent to more circular or temporary ones (Holecki et al., 2020; Zimmerman et al., 2011). The Internet, for example, has enabled visualizing a better life elsewhere and this can become a motivator for migration across age groups and regions. These changes necessitate a relook at the contexts in which people migrate and the implications for their mental health and well-being.
The largest migration trend is from less to more developed countries, with Europe and Oceania being the favourite migrant destinations (Melzer & Muffels, 2017). While migration takes place among all ages, the reason for international migration varies across age groups. The young tend to migrate for better education and improved employment prospects, and older people may follow their adult children for family reunification, or for accessing better healthcare, or lifestyle amenities (Scommegna, 2013).
Migration, be it forced or voluntary, is a stressful phenomenon. It is more so for those migrating later in life because the intersections of migration and ageing make people susceptible to unique vulnerabilities (Litwin & Leshem, 2008). For example, older people’s adaptive capacities may be limited resulting in health, socioeconomic, and other support needs that are significantly different from younger age groups. Language barriers, limited employment opportunities, financial instability, and lack of entitlement benefits make them dependent on family members (Treas, 2008; Hadfield, 2014; Wu & Penning, 2015). This dependence is often accompanied by a loss of agency and control, significantly affecting their emotional health and well-being (Alvi & Zaidi, 2017). Existing evidence shows that older adults prefer to “age in place”, as a familiar environment with an existing support network that provides them with both independence and autonomy and thus positively influences their mental health and well-being (Kennedy et al., 2015). Aging in place is also encouraged by policymakers because of its cost-saving benefits (Marek et al., 2012). Thus, it is important to look at the reasons that urge older people to leave their familiar environment and migrate.
So far, migration literature has been heavily skewed towards the working-age group i.e., the young, skilled migrants and international students (King et al. 2016; Coulter et al., 2016; Finney, 2011). Migration later in life (circular or permanent) requires specific attention as adapting to an unfamiliar environment can be particularly stressful for older people (Jang et al., 2020). Review studies considering the intersection of aging and migration are either country-specific, focused on the general ageing experiences, migration from developed to developing countries, or the social impact of late-life migration (Georgeou et al., 2021, Tang & Zolnikov, 2021; Maleku et al., 2021; Wang & Lai, 2020). The mental health impact of conflict-induced forced migration has also been studied extensively with a particular focus on refugees and asylum seekers (Virgincar et al., 2016). There have been some studies on the mental health and well-being of older adults otherwise at liberty to migrate (Treas & Mazumdar, 2002). However, there is a lack of systematic review of such studies.
The 1998 United Nations Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration define ‘international migrant’ as a person who has changed their country of residence. Those migrating over the age of 65 are a significant number and would be close to 26 million worldwide (Zaiceva, 2014). In Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the number of older retired migrants is close to the number of working migrants (Zaiceva, 2014). It is known that the likelihood of migration in later life reduces with age (Holecki et al., 2020), however, an initial scope showed that very few studies have focussed on the mental health and well-being of older migrants above 65 years. The age criterion for the proposed systematic review is expanded to older adults aged 50 years and above.
This study protocol is following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement (Moher et al., 2015).
It was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Reg: CRD42022359881). Significant protocol amendments will be reported with the publication of the review.
The eligibility criteria for the included publications will be described based on the Population, Interest, context (PICo) framework (Lockwood et al., 2015).
We will include original studies on later-life migrants (≥ 50 years). Setting the age criteria at 50 and above for later-life migrations considers various factors. Firstly, given the global perspective of this study, this cut off accounts for the diversity in sociocultural definition of old age across countries (Zittoun & Baucal, 2021). For instance, in China, the legal retirement age varies according to the gender and the nature of the job of a person. Men can work until 60, while women retire by 55 and 50 in white and blue collar respectively (Zhao & Zhao, 2018). Secondly, a preliminary search showed that the cutoff to an older age considerably shrunk the sample size. Thirdly, earlier studies suggested 50 and above as the age criteria for later-life migrations because this age represents nearly two-thirds of the average life expectancy and those relocating after 50 are significantly more likely to experience work history disruptions (Carr & Tienda, 2013). Thus, this age range allows us to focus on a group of immigrants that have unique motivations and experiences, providing valuable insights into their migration processes.
The migration experiences of different categories of migrants including refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced people vary a lot and thus can have a different impact on health outcomes. Thus, this review focuses exclusively on older unforced migrants. Unforced migrants have been defined as those migrating for reasons other than an imminent danger to life due to situations such as war, conflict, persecution, or catastrophic natural disasters. These unforced migrants could be driven by several reasons including fiscal or social goals such as pursuing improved living conditions, healthcare, or an opportunity to reconnect with family members. Studies related to refugees, asylum seekers, and other undocumented migrants and those not specifically related to later-life migration have been excluded. Navigating migration in older life is known to be particularly difficult (Liu et al., 2020). Research indicates older age at migration and limited years in the host country are significantly associated with negative mental health consequences which get moderated over time with increased cultural adaptation (Xiao et al., 2019). Leaving behind established social connections, including family, friends, and community ties makes the initial few years particularly challenging. The absence of social support results in feelings of isolation, loneliness, and increased vulnerability to mental health problems and sometimes premature death (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2012). With prolonged stay in the host country, newer social connections are formed improving migrants' ability to access and utilize mental health services and thus improving their mental health (Leu et al., 2008; Park et al., 2013). The inclusion criteria for the length of stay of migrants in the destination country is thus set to ≤ 5 years to capture the transitory challenges. Studies in which the length of stay cannot be ascertained or is more than 5 years will be excluded.
Older migrants are more susceptible to mental health issues because of the loss of a familiar environment and difficulty making newer social connections (Wang et al., 2022). All studies looking at the positive or negative impact of migration on the mental health and well-being of older unforced migrants will be included.
Although internal migration can be equally challenging for older adults, for this review, studies focussing only on international migration/movement across international borders will be included. Studies related to intra-country/internal migration (rural to urban) will be excluded.
We will include all types of original studies that meet the above-mentioned inclusion criteria. Grey literature, reports of government and non-governmental organisations, editorial letters, conference papers, poster presentations, dissertations, expert opinions, letters to the editor, commentaries, and reviews will be excluded.
All articles published from the date of origin of the database to 23rd May 2022 will be included. Hand searching of articles by examining the reference lists of the included studies will be completed by November 2022.
Original articles that are published in academic peer-reviewed journals will be included.
To make the search comprehensive, a search of the current literature using seven electronic databases will be performed. These include (1) PsycINFO (via Ovid); (2) Web of Science (via Ebsco); (3) PubMed; (4) Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts: ASSIA; (5) Age line (via Ebsco); (6) CINAHL (via Ebsco); and (7) Informit Search. Hand-searching of potentially relevant studies will be done through the reference lists of all included studies and the reference lists of previously published related systematic reviews.
The search strategy will be developed using the PICo framework (Lockwood et al., 2015), combined with Medical Subject Headings (MESH) where applicable. Searches will be structured using a combination of keywords related to three main concepts; terms related to the study population such as “elderly”, “seniors”, (2) terms related to interest such as “mental health” or “mental issues”, and (3) terms related to context such as “migration”, “immigration”. The similarity of search terms will be ensured across databases to maintain consistency. The following are the search terms used in CINAHL VIA EBSCO without any limiters: (Grandparent OR grandparents OR grandmother OR grandmothers OR grandfathers OR grandfather OR geriatric* OR “senior citizens” OR “late-life” OR “later life” OR elderly OR “third age” OR “fourth age” OR retire* OR pensioners OR “Extended Family” OR “old aged” OR “older adults” OR “older adulthood”) AND (“mental health” OR “psychological health” OR “well being” OR wellbeing OR “Quality of life” OR “life satisfaction” OR coping OR resilience OR depression OR anxiety OR loneliness OR suicide OR suicidal) AND (migration OR immigration OR migrant? OR immigrant? OR “temporary visa” OR “temporary entrant” OR “documented migrants” OR “documented migrant” OR “documented immigrant?” OR “documented immigrants” OR “authorized immigrants” OR “authorized immigrant”).
Search results will be imported to Endnote, and then exported to Covidence systematic review software and duplicates will be auto-removed. While Endnote is a paid reference management software, free alternatives such as ReadCube Papers can likewise be used. Zotero is likewise a no cost alternative to Covidence for systematic screening of literature. In the first stage of screening using Covidence, the first reviewer (PB) will screen the titles and abstracts of each study against the inclusion criteria and the second reviewer (HM) will review the decisions made. Any disagreements will be mutually resolved through discussion. Potentially eligible records will be marked for full screening. Those titles and abstracts that provide insufficient information to determine relevance, will also be subjected to full screening. Afterward, full texts of potentially eligible studies will be retrieved for full-text review and assessed for eligibility by two review authors (PB and HM). Hand-searching of the references of selected articles will be conducted for identifying potentially relevant studies. During the entire process, the eligibility of the studies will be negotiated by consensus.
A customised form will be used for data extraction. The following study characteristics will be extracted in a customised form:
• Aims/objectives/research questions
• Methodology
• Participant characteristics including the age of participants, country of origin, country to which they have migrated, and their context of migration.
• Key findings related to implications on mental health and wellbeing
The data extraction form will be developed through consultation. All the authors will contribute to data extraction. NVivo QSR will be used to assist in data extraction. A flow chart showing details of studies included and excluded at each stage of the study selection process will be provided.
The thematic synthesis of the data (both qualitative and quantitative) will be performed using a hybrid approach incorporating two contrasting philosophical methods of reasoning i.e., a top-down, deductive, theoretical process, and a bottom-up, inductive, data-driven process. For the deductive method, a table of priori codes will be created using a customised social determinants of health (SDH) framework. For effectively addressing mental health issues, causal pathways can best be understood with the SDH framework which consider a range of factors; social, economic, cultural, and political impinging upon the health of the person. WHO defines SDH as, “conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age – conditions that together provide the freedom people need to live lives they value” (Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008, p. 26). SDH emphasizes the construction and impact of social structures and people’s relative positions in stratified hierarchies and power relationships and takes into consideration the interconnectedness of social, structural, and/or ecological factors that affect people’s health status (Castañeda et al., 2015). There has been growing interest in the social determinant of health framework in public health research and non-profit agencies (Braveman et al., 2011), however, this framework has not been widely used in the field of immigration and health.
Individual factors like age, gender, socioeconomic position, educational background, and financial stability which largely determine the welfare benefits one receives in the host country will be explored. An understanding of attitudes toward mental health, stigma, stereotypes, beliefs, and taboos related to mental illnesses is also important to understand the health-seeking behaviours of migrants in a new culture. This includes their relationship to the traditions and practices of the culture of origin.
Despite the WHO’s emphasis on the ‘Health in all Policies’ approach, the influence of upstream SDH on migrants’ health largely goes unexplored in the migrant literature (WHO, 2014; Castañeda et al., 2015). For this review, attention would be given to the influence of upstream SDH including policies related to healthcare, welfare, insurance, and migration. Additionally, the economic policies of the host country, the differences in the socio-cultural context, and their impact on the mental health of migrants will also be explored.
Older migrants in most cases tend to stay with their adult children upon arriving in the host country (Liou & Shenk, 2016). Thus, family dynamics (conflict between intimate relationships), interactions with family members including spouse, children, grandchildren, and dependence on family members often lead to specific psychosocial stressors (Liou & Shenk, 2016). Specific attention will be given to the role of interpersonal relationships, formal and informal social networks, and social support systems in affecting the mental health and well-being of migrants. Migrants’ interactions with healthcare institutions, and other facilities like aged care, voluntary organizations working for migrants, and religious organisations will also be reported.
The priori set of codes will be supplemented with the codes emerging through the inductive analysis of the articles. To improve intercoder reliability, coding will be regularly reviewed by all three reviewers, and disparities and discrepancies (if any) will be addressed with consultation.
The findings of multiple studies with diverse research approaches will be analysed and combined through thematic synthesis. The focus would be on identifying and integrating shared concepts among the studies. Statistical pooling of data will not be done. Quality appraisal of the included studies is a mandatory requirement of systematic reviews reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) as it is highly useful in the appraisal of a range of study designs included in the mixed methods integrative systematic review (Hong et al., 2018; Pluye, 2015). To achieve consistency, the reviewers will develop a common understanding of the appraisal tool through discussions.
One of the main strengths of the protocol is its use of a comprehensive search strategy and a range of databases covering areas of migration, mental health, and ageing. No limitation has been applied in terms of the year of publication. It would be difficult to avoid publication bias because of the exclusion of grey literature and studies published in languages other than English. There is also a possibility of exclusion of some data of interest because of the exclusion of studies having a heterogenous population including undocumented migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced people, and studies not focussing specifically on later-life migration are also excluded.
Increased migrations are reflective of widening global inequalities in terms of educational facilities, wages, healthcare facilities, and other resources. These increased migrations pose a challenge for global health equity movements as they put pressure on the health systems of the destination countries requiring arrangements for more healthcare workers, in line with development goals and for ensuring productive aging as international agreements entrust them with this responsibility.
Countries so far have failed to acknowledge the difference between immigrants who aged in host countries and those who immigrated later in life (Maleku et al., 2021). Additionally, voluntary migrants often get overlooked by policymakers as they aren’t viewed as deserving of social and health services (Castañeda et al., 2015). To our knowledge, this planned systematic review will be the first to examine the mental health implications for those willingly migrating later in life.
The findings of the review can serve in knowledge dissemination related to the factors that prompt the older people to leave familiar environments and the identification of the congruence between the expectations of migrants and the initiatives taken by the host country for their successful integration and for achieving the goal of mental health for all. Issues related to access eligibility or barriers in the host country, and associations with older migrant health according to their migration contexts are also likely to be identified.
The review will likely help understand the unique circumstances and motivations behind later life migration decisions. Secondly, the understanding of the factors affecting mental health and wellbeing of older unforced migrants can help identify unique stressors and risk factors for targeted intervention strategies and effective resource allocation.
Searching and screening for relevant studies is expected to be completed in January 2023.
As systematic reviews use data from previously approved published studies, they are exempted from ethical approval. The results of this review study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
PB conceived and designed the study and is the guarantor. HM and YH supervised the entire process. PB and HM developed the search strategy, research questions, and study design. PB drafted the Protocol manuscript. HM and YH gave their inputs and revised the manuscript. All three authors approved the final draft of the protocol. All the reviewers will contribute to data extraction, synthesis, and the final draft of the review. All authors consent to abide by the protocol.
Figshare: CINAHL database search strategy for ‘Study protocol for a systematic review of the social determinants of mental health and well-being of older migrants aged 50 years and above’, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21545673.v3 (Bhatia et al., 2022b).
This project contains the search strategy for CINAHL database.
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
figshare: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘Study protocol for a systematic review of the social determinants of mental health and well-being of older migrants aged 50 years and above’, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21545673.v3 (Bhatia et al., 2022a).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Work of Care, Social Policy, Evaluation
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Work of Care, Social Policy, Evaluation
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Migration; mental health, policy
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 2 (revision) 08 Mar 24 |
read | |
Version 1 06 Jan 23 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)