Discussion
This systematic review showed that refugee children entering Australia, Canada, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA face considerable health risks. Various factors influence the risk of disease in this population, including the lack of access to antenatal screening, vaccination programmes and healthcare in addition to political instability, war, poverty, poor hygiene and insufficient nutrition in their countries of origin. This study revealed the heterogeneous nature of the population of refugee children as demonstrated by the wide variation in the estimated prevalence rates of a range of health conditions.
The global prevalence rates of chronic hepatitis found by Schweitzer et al are in line with this study’s findings, which indicate that children originating from high-prevalence countries should be considered as at higher risk than children born in reception countries.9
There is a wide variety of national policies for screening refugee children on arrival.17 Policy statements emphasise the importance of multisector collaboration and child rights-based approaches.18
The European Association of Paediatrics has developed a practical, consensus-based recommendation for providing medical care to refugee children in Europe.19 Several clinical guidelines have been designed to address the health needs of both immigrants and refugees. The European Commission has developed a health assessment guideline for refugees and migrants entering European countries, including a section on child health and development.20 The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has similarly developed screening guidelines for immigrants (including refugee children) that are unique to each country of origin.21 Australian guidelines focus on infectious and non-infectious diseases.22 Canada has also established extensive guidelines for the general refugee population to cover four areas of screening (infectious disease, mental health, chronic and non-communicable disease, and reproductive health).23 The Canadian Paediatric Society has likewise tailored these guidelines based on the country of origin when dealing with children.24 There are also countries with voluntary upon-entry medical screening for refugee children. A wide variety of practices are implemented in these cases, most of which are based on fragmented and sometimes limited experience or expert opinion.
Infectious diseases have traditionally been the priority of health assessment of refugee children. Due to the shift in disease burden in refugee populations, the focus of the health assessment of refugee children has moved towards early detection of more chronic and lifestyle conditions such as obesity.25
Decisions on how, for whom and when to extend health assessments with additional tests do not solely depend on estimated prevalence rates and the probabilities of developing certain health conditions but also on outside practicalities. These include national budgets, cost-effectiveness, the reversibility of certain conditions, minority access to health systems and knowledge of health conditions among healthcare workers.
The question of cost-effectiveness is an issue that can only be answered when data specifically for refugee children are available. Veldhuijzen et al proved that adult refugee screening programmes for chronic HBV were cost-effective when the goal was to improve outcomes through early detection and treatment.26 Usemann et al stated that LTBI screening is cost-effective if progression rates of 5% and higher from latent to active TB are present in populations with an LTBI prevalence of 14%.27
Ethical questions surrounding screening programme for vulnerable groups must be considered. The screening criteria originally laid out by Wilson and Jungner provide a widely accepted framework for screening programmes.28
Another factor influencing the successful implementation of a comprehensive health assessment is the ability of healthcare professionals to provide culturally competent care. This includes ensuring the familiarity of healthcare providers with the culturally dependent presentation of symptoms and working to augment the fragmented or limited knowledge of the health risks and specific (tropical) diseases seen in refugee children.29
Some conditions may spontaneously resolve after the migration process, when children are no longer continuously exposed to infectious diseases and when they receive access to proper micronutrients. However, Penrose et al showed that vitamin D levels worsened after refugees resettled in Western countries.30
Refugee children and their families are known to have poorer access to healthcare facilities than other groups.29 Several studies have underlined the importance of professional translators when attempting to improve medical outcomes among refugee children.31 32 Many refugees are already familiar with screening processes such as the premarital test for β-thalassemia.8 Brandenberger et al underlined in their review the three key challenges in healthcare delivery for refugees and migrants: communication, continuity of care and confidence.33
Issues such as granted access to care, follow-ups, economic aspects, feasibility and sustainability also need to be addressed before implementing an extended health assessment. These are beyond the scope of this systematic review. Rigorous qualitative evaluations of all children identified with a health condition should also be conducted to ensure they receive high quality care.
Strengths and limitations of this systematic review
One strength of this systematic review was the overwhelming amount of population-based data that were available for use when analysing refugee children. However, the heterogeneity of their populations was the main limitation of this review. Unpredictable and fluctuating refugee streams and the ever-changing demographics in their countries of origin were also major limitations. The data do not necessarily reflect the current situations of conflict in the Middle East and Northern Africa, which cause rapid changes in refugee flows. The representativeness of the studied samples was also a major limitation. Therefore, we used the term estimated prevalence to describe our results. Thus, there may have been underestimates or overestimates. Prevalence rates may also vary due to introduction of new vaccination campaigns as evidenced by the declining prevalence of HBV over the last decade. We realise that our focus on English literature meant that relevant studies published in other languages would be missed.