BACKGROUND: The relationship between migration and health has primarily focused on permanent migrants, although non-permanent migrants comprise a large proportion of global migrants. Non-permanent migrants may have distinct needs that affect their health outcomes. This systematic review 1) examined the evidence concerning whether non-permanent migrants have different health outcomes than other population groups for non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs) and 2) sought to describe how non-permanent migration is defined and measured.
METHODS: For this systematic review, we developed a comprehensive search string for terms about non-permanent migration and disease and screening rates for three NCDs (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes) and searched thirteen electronic databases using the search string. Authors reviewed and evaluated articles for full-text review; hand-searched specific journals and grey literature; and scanned reference lists of relevant studies. Authors extracted and assessed data based on standard reporting for epidemiologic studies.
RESULTS: We identified twelve peer-reviewed articles that examined NCD outcomes for non-permanent migrants as compared to other populations. Some studies showed worse or no significant differences in the NCD outcomes for non-permanent migrants compared to other groups. The articles reflected substantial diversity that exists among non-permanent migrants, which ranged from economic migrants to nomadic populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-permanent migrants varied in their NCD outcomes as compared to other groups. Our included studies were heterogenous in their study designs and their definitions and measurement of non-permanent migration, which limited the ability to make conclusive statements about the health of the populations as compared to other populations. More standardization is needed in research to better understand the diversity in these populations and quantify differences in risk factors and disease rates between non-permanent migrants and other groups.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether aerobic exercise was superior to usual care in alleviating depressive symptoms in patients living with a major non-communicable disease.
METHODS: Data were obtained from online databases (PubMed, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus) as well as from reference lists. The search and collection of eligible studies was conducted up to 18 October 2018 (PROSPERO registration number CRD42017069089).
METHODS: We included interventions that compared aerobic exercise with usual care in adults who reported depressive symptoms (ie, not necessarily the clinical diagnosis of depression) and were living with a major non-communicable disease.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis (4111 patients). Aerobic exercise alleviated depressive symptoms better than did usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.50; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.76; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low quality). Aerobic exercise was particularly effective in alleviating depressive symptoms in cardiac patients (SMD=0.67; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise alleviated depressive symptoms in patients living with a major non-communicable disease, particularly in cardiac populations. Whether aerobic exercise treats clinically diagnosed depression was outside the scope of this study.