PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study summarised evidence on the prevalence of interpersonal, community and state physical violence against people in insecure migration status.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies that estimated prevalence of physical violence against a population in insecure migration status. We searched Embase, Social Policy and Practice, Political Science Complete, SocINDEX and Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index for reports published from January 2000 until 31 May 2023. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs assessment tool for cross-sectional studies. Two reviewers carried out screening, data extraction, quality assessment and analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted in Stata 17, using a random effects model and several exploratory subgroup analyses.
RESULTS: We retrieved 999 reports and included 31 retrospective cross-sectional studies with 25,997 migrants in insecure status. The prevalence estimate of physical violence was 31.16% (95% CI 25.62-36.70, p < .00). There was no statistically significant difference in the estimates for prevalence of violence for men (35.30%, 95% CI 18.45-52.15, p < .00) and for women (27.78%, 95% CI 21.42-34.15, p < .00). The highest point estimate of prevalence of violence was where insecure status was related to employment (44.40%, 95% CI 18.24-70.57, p < .00), although there were no statistically significant difference in the subgroup analysis. The prevalence of violence for people in undocumented status was not significantly different (29.13%, 95% CI 19.86-38.41, p < .00) than that for refugees and asylum seekers (33.29%, 95% CI 20.99-45.59, p < .00). The prevalence of violence in Asia was 56.01% (95% CI 22.47-89.55, p < .00). Europe had the lowest point prevalence estimate (17.98%, 95% CI 7.36-28.61, p < .00), although the difference was not statistically significant. The prevalence estimate during the migration journey was 32.93% (95% CI 24.98-40.88, p < .00). Intimate partner violence attached to insecure status was estimated at 29.10%, (95% CI 8.37-49.84, p = .01), and state violence at 9.19% (95% CI 6.71-11.68, p < .00).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of physical violence is a concern among people in a range of insecure migration statuses. Prevalence of violence is not meaningfully higher for people in undocumented status than for people in other types of insecure status.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO (CRD42021268772).
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies that estimated prevalence of physical violence against a population in insecure migration status. We searched Embase, Social Policy and Practice, Political Science Complete, SocINDEX and Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index for reports published from January 2000 until 31 May 2023. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs assessment tool for cross-sectional studies. Two reviewers carried out screening, data extraction, quality assessment and analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted in Stata 17, using a random effects model and several exploratory subgroup analyses.
RESULTS: We retrieved 999 reports and included 31 retrospective cross-sectional studies with 25,997 migrants in insecure status. The prevalence estimate of physical violence was 31.16% (95% CI 25.62-36.70, p < .00). There was no statistically significant difference in the estimates for prevalence of violence for men (35.30%, 95% CI 18.45-52.15, p < .00) and for women (27.78%, 95% CI 21.42-34.15, p < .00). The highest point estimate of prevalence of violence was where insecure status was related to employment (44.40%, 95% CI 18.24-70.57, p < .00), although there were no statistically significant difference in the subgroup analysis. The prevalence of violence for people in undocumented status was not significantly different (29.13%, 95% CI 19.86-38.41, p < .00) than that for refugees and asylum seekers (33.29%, 95% CI 20.99-45.59, p < .00). The prevalence of violence in Asia was 56.01% (95% CI 22.47-89.55, p < .00). Europe had the lowest point prevalence estimate (17.98%, 95% CI 7.36-28.61, p < .00), although the difference was not statistically significant. The prevalence estimate during the migration journey was 32.93% (95% CI 24.98-40.88, p < .00). Intimate partner violence attached to insecure status was estimated at 29.10%, (95% CI 8.37-49.84, p = .01), and state violence at 9.19% (95% CI 6.71-11.68, p < .00).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of physical violence is a concern among people in a range of insecure migration statuses. Prevalence of violence is not meaningfully higher for people in undocumented status than for people in other types of insecure status.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO (CRD42021268772).
摘要：
目的：本研究总结了人际关系患病率的证据，社区和州对移民身份不安全的人的身体暴力。
方法：我们对初步研究进行了系统评价和荟萃分析，这些研究估计了针对不安全迁移状态人群的身体暴力的患病率。我们搜查了Embase,社会政策与实践,政治学完整,SocINDEX和WebofScience社会科学引文索引为2000年1月至2023年5月31日发表的报告。使用适用于横断面研究的JoannaBriggs评估工具的改编版本评估研究质量。两名审稿人进行了筛选，数据提取,质量评估和分析。在Stata17中使用随机效应模型和一些探索性亚组分析进行荟萃分析。
结果：我们检索了999份报告，包括31项回顾性横断面研究，25,997名处于不安全状态的移民。身体暴力的患病率估计为31.16%（95%CI25.62-36.70，p<.00）。男性暴力患病率的估计值没有统计学上的显着差异（35.30％，95%CI18.45-52.15，p<.00）和女性（27.78%，95%CI21.42-34.15，p<.00）。暴力流行率的最高点估计是不安全状况与就业有关(44.40%，95%CI18.24-70.57，p<.00），尽管在亚组分析中没有统计学上的显著差异。处于无证状态的人的暴力患病率没有显着差异（29.13％，95%CI19.86-38.41，p<.00)比难民和寻求庇护者(33.29%，95%CI20.99-45.59，p<.00）。亚洲的暴力患病率为56.01%（95%CI22.47-89.55，p<.00）。欧洲的患病率估计最低(17.98%，95%CI7.36-28.61，p<.00），尽管差异无统计学意义。迁移过程中的患病率估计值为32.93％（95％CI24.98-40.88，p<.00）。与不安全状态相关的亲密伴侣暴力估计为29.10％，（95%CI8.37-49.84，p=0.01），州暴力为9.19%（95%CI6.71-11.68，p<.00）。
结论：在一系列不安全的移民状态下，身体暴力的普遍性是一个令人担忧的问题。处于无证件状态的人的暴力患病率并不比处于其他类型不安全状态的人高。
背景：PROSPERO（CRD42021268772）。
方法：我们对初步研究进行了系统评价和荟萃分析，这些研究估计了针对不安全迁移状态人群的身体暴力的患病率。我们搜查了Embase,社会政策与实践,政治学完整,SocINDEX和WebofScience社会科学引文索引为2000年1月至2023年5月31日发表的报告。使用适用于横断面研究的JoannaBriggs评估工具的改编版本评估研究质量。两名审稿人进行了筛选，数据提取,质量评估和分析。在Stata17中使用随机效应模型和一些探索性亚组分析进行荟萃分析。
结果：我们检索了999份报告，包括31项回顾性横断面研究，25,997名处于不安全状态的移民。身体暴力的患病率估计为31.16%（95%CI25.62-36.70，p<.00）。男性暴力患病率的估计值没有统计学上的显着差异（35.30％，95%CI18.45-52.15，p<.00）和女性（27.78%，95%CI21.42-34.15，p<.00）。暴力流行率的最高点估计是不安全状况与就业有关(44.40%，95%CI18.24-70.57，p<.00），尽管在亚组分析中没有统计学上的显著差异。处于无证状态的人的暴力患病率没有显着差异（29.13％，95%CI19.86-38.41，p<.00)比难民和寻求庇护者(33.29%，95%CI20.99-45.59，p<.00）。亚洲的暴力患病率为56.01%（95%CI22.47-89.55，p<.00）。欧洲的患病率估计最低(17.98%，95%CI7.36-28.61，p<.00），尽管差异无统计学意义。迁移过程中的患病率估计值为32.93％（95％CI24.98-40.88，p<.00）。与不安全状态相关的亲密伴侣暴力估计为29.10％，（95%CI8.37-49.84，p=0.01），州暴力为9.19%（95%CI6.71-11.68，p<.00）。
结论：在一系列不安全的移民状态下，身体暴力的普遍性是一个令人担忧的问题。处于无证件状态的人的暴力患病率并不比处于其他类型不安全状态的人高。
背景：PROSPERO（CRD42021268772）。
