SARS-CoV-2 among migrants and forcibly displaced populations: a rapid systematic review ======================================================================================= * Maren Hintermeier * Hande Gencer * Katja Kajikhina * Sven Rohleder * Claudia Santos-Hövener * Marie Tallarek * Jacob Spallek * Kayvan Bozorgmehr ## Abstract The economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic pose a particular threat to vulnerable groups, such as migrants, particularly forcibly displaced populations. The aim of this review is (i) to synthesise the evidence on risk of infection and transmission among migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced populations, and (ii) the effect of lockdown measures on these populations. We searched MEDLINE and WOS, preprint servers, and pertinent websites between 1st December 2019 and 26th June 2020. The included studies showed a high heterogeneity in study design, population, outcome and quality. The incidence risk of SARS-CoV-2 varied from 0·12% to 2·08% in non-outbreak settings and from 5·64% to 21·15% in outbreak settings. Migrants showed a lower hospitalisation rate compared to non-migrants. Negative impacts on mental health due to lockdown measures were found across respective studies. However, findings show a tenuous and heterogeneous data situation, showing the need for more robust and comparative study designs. KEYWORDS * migrants * forcibly displaced * SARS-CoV-2 * COVID-19 * refugees * asylum seekers ## 1. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic poses economic and health threats to people worldwide, especially to migrants and forcibly displaced populations, such as refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons (IDP).[1] Policy measures taken to mitigate the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may exacerbate poor health conditions among these populations, or exacerbate conditions which create or add to pre-existing vulnerabilities. Especially low-wage labour migrants and forcibly displaced populations often live in crowded accommodations where they share rooms as well as cooking and sanitary facilities with a number of people outside their own household. Physical distancing and recommended hygiene measures are not feasible in many such contexts.[2] Considering that 78 to 85% of human-to-human transmissions take place in family clusters and up to 10% on household level, these conditions are likely to increase the risk of infection and rapid dissemination among migrants and displaced populations.[3] Precarious working conditions may add to these vulnerabilities, mainly in manual labour jobs e.g., agricultural, or domestic work, that do not allow for protective measures like self-isolation, home-office, or physical distancing.[2, 4] This often leads to the loss of livelihoods due to the policy and lockdown measures taken, as it happened to many migrant workers in India under the national lockdown in March 2020.[5] While the COVID-19 pandemic poses a threat to migrants and displaced populations, evidence on risk of infection, progress of disease, and effective prevention strategies is still lacking. An emerging body of evidence showed racial and ethnic disparities, with higher SARS-CoV-2 incidence in ethnic minorities compared to white persons.[6, 7] However, there is only a small number of studies investigating these aspects in migrants and displaced populations. This review aims to synthesise the empirical evidence on risk of infection, transmission, development of disease, and risk of severe course of disease among migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and IDPs. The secondary objective is to review the evidence on the effects of lockdown measures on their health, and effective policy strategies to avert risks and negative outcomes. We thereby seek to summarise valuable information to inform future research in this field. ## 2. Methods ### 2.1 Search strategy and selection criteria We conceived a rapid systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020195633) based on recommendations by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group.[8] To maintain quality while utilising resources efficiently, two underlying decisions have been made to accelerate the review process: the number of databases to search was restricted to two and the language of publication to English and German only. The search strategy was twofold: Using scientific databases on the one hand and pertinent websites on the other to identify further relevant articles and grey literature. We conducted a systematic search query in MEDLINE via PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection (WOS) and searched in the major preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv to cover yet unpublished research results in this fast and early time of the current pandemic. The search included the time between 1st December 2019 and 26th June 2020 using English search terms for the study population and SARS-CoV-2 as exposure (for details on the search query see Supplementary File: Appendix A). Additional publications were identified on the websites of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the European Public Health Association (EUPHA), the World Health Organisation (WHO) COVID research, and the website of the systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH). The website search was conducted by two independent researchers between the 25th and 29th of June 2020. The screening process was done in two steps. First, two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts by applying pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria (see table 1). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/14/2020.12.14.20248152/T1) Table 1: Inclusion/Exclusion criteria View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/14/2020.12.14.20248152/T2) Table 2: Overview of included studies Conflicts were resolved through discussion or, where no agreement was reached, by a third reviewer. In the next step, full text screening for eligible records was conducted by following the same procedure as the title and abstract screening. Due to the novelty of the current pandemic and the conception of this project as a rapid review, references of eligible articles were screened, and, alongside journal articles, peer-reviewed comments or letters to the editors were included, if they reported empirical data. ### 2.2 Quality assessment The quality appraisal of included studies was carried out independently and in duplicate. Quantitative studies were assessed using the tool of the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP). Modelling studies were appraised using a self-developed instrument derived from existing tools.[10-13] The Covidence software was used for the screening of titles, abstract, and full-texts as well as for quality appraisal. ### 2.3 Data extraction and Outcomes Data extraction was performed in Excel 2016 by one reviewer (MH) using a piloted form and checked by a second reviewer (KB) for correctness and completeness of the extracted data. The data extraction form included the categories generic bibliographic information, study characteristics, study objectives, hypothesis and research questions, population, and context characteristics, as well as findings and results of the critical appraisal (see Supplementary File: Appendix B). Data extraction for this systematic review considered the primary studies, and the modelling studies included. Primary outcomes were incidence risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections among migrant and forcibly displaced populations, and outcomes of infections (e.g. measured by hospitalisation, admissions to intensive care units (ICU), or mortality). Where reported, outcomes were extracted by subgroups (e.g. by nationality, or contextual information such as accommodation type). Secondary outcomes were the effects of lockdown measures on the health status of refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs and migrants, especially referring to mental health outcomes. ### 2.4 Evidence Synthesis and Statistical analysis Extracted data was tabulated and summarised by narrative synthesis and, where applicable, by statistical meta-analysis. Numbers of SARS-CoV-2 cases and respective population size, including data on sub-groups, were visualised in a forest plot along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals calculated by the ‘metaprop’ command in STATA SE 15 (with the “nooverall” option to supress pooling of studies across subgroups due to high heterogeneity).[14] ### 2.5 Role of the funding source The review was performed in the scope of the Vulnerability Group of the Competence Network Public Health Covid-19.[15] No specific funding was received for this study. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and the final responsibility to submit for publication. ## 3. Results The searches resulted in a total of 973 hits, and after duplicate removal, 715 studies remained for screening. Of these, 133 records were included for full-text screening and 13 met all the inclusion criteria. Using the snowballing method, two further studies meeting the inclusion criteria were detected. In total, 15 studies were included in this review (Figure 1). ![Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/12/14/2020.12.14.20248152/F1.medium.gif) [Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/14/2020.12.14.20248152/F1) Quality appraisal using the EPHPP tool resulted in two studies at low risk of bias, four studies at moderate risk of bias, and six studies at high risk of bias. Appraisal of the modelling studies resulted in two studies at low risk of bias and one at high risk of bias. An overview of the quality appraisal is provided in the supplements [see detailed risk of bias assessment: Appendix C]. Almost half of the studies (n=7) reported data from high-income countries (HIC), five studies reported from upper or low middle-income countries (MIC), and three studies reported from low-income countries (LIC). The studies covered the following migrant and forcibly displaced population groups: refugees, asylum seekers or IDPs (n=5), migrant workers (n=4), international students (n=2), and migrants with no further specification (n=2). The reported outcomes were incidence risks among migrant population groups, modelled transmission scenarios, physical health outcomes such as hospitalisation, ICU admissions, or mortality, and mental or social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on peoples’ health or well-being. ### 3.1 Incidence risk The incidence risk among the observational studies varied from 0·12% to 2·08% in non-outbreak settings [16, 17], and from 5·64% to 21·15% in outbreak settings [18, 19], showing a high heterogeneity across the studies. Modelling studies also showed a high heterogeneity, which is due to different scenarios and timeframes. Detailed estimates on migrants and forcibly displaced populations are plotted in figure 2. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/12/14/2020.12.14.20248152/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/14/2020.12.14.20248152/F2) Figure 2: PRISMA Flow-Chart **Figure 2: Forest plot of Incidence risks** **[see attached]** Legend: Bojorquez et al. (szenario 1): Population of asylum seekers waiting to submit their asylum application in April 2020 [20]; Bojorquez et al. (szenario 2): Population refers to the number of cases in the United States immigration courts assigned to the MPP program from March 2019 to March 2020 [21]; Trulove et al. (scenario 1): Basic reproduction number R0= 1·5–2·0; Trulove et al. (scenario 2): Basic reproduction number R0= 2·0-3·0; Trulove et al. (scenario 3): Basic reproduction number R0= 3·3-5·0; Hariri et al*: Camp-population scenario with a very fast doubling rate of 2·3 days; Irvine et al.*: Only data from most optimistic scenario extracted (R0=2·5). Y-axis: percentage (%). ES: estimate of incidence proportion. Studies with patient populations[17] report lower incidence rates compared to populations in congested settings [18, 19, 22-24]. However, the incidence risk varies among the different regions of origin of those infected (0·21-2·08%).[17] Compared to the incidence risk for the Spanish estimated at 0·7%, significantly higher rates were reported by a pre-print study for individuals from Sub-Saharan-Africa, Caribbean, and Latin America.[17] A high risk of bias study among migrants in transit in Mexico reports low incidence risks in two scenarios with 0·12% or 0·51% respectively.[16] The estimated cumulative incidence in two scenarios (with different sources for the population size of asylum seekers in the US) showed a higher number of suspected cases per 100 000 in the migrant group compared to non-migrants.[17] An ecological study investigating migrants in transit in Mexico found a higher Incidence Risk Ratio (IRR: 6·43, 95%CI, 4·41-9·39) for SARS-CoV-2 in state cluster populations with a higher proportion of migrants.[25] Contextual factors, such as dormitories, were associated with incidence risks in migrant workers in the range of 5·64% (95%CI, 5·56-5·72) to 19·43% (95%CI, 18·75-20·12)[18] and 21·15% (95%CI, 20·12-22·21)[19]. Another study assessed SARS-CoV-2 screening campaigns in different shelters and accommodation centres of homeless people and asylum seekers in Marseille, France. No SARS-CoV-2 cases were found among the asylum seekers tested on a voluntary basis, while among the 411 homeless people, facing similar living conditions, tested in different shelters 9% (n=37) were tested positive.[26] ### 3.2 Transmission Dynamics and Hospitalisation Transmission scenarios were found to be slow in the beginning with a rapid increase of infections starting between the fourth week and the third month after start of simulated outbreaks.[22, 23] Irvine et al. found the speed of transmission in confined detention centres to be dependent on the facility size, starting with five infected individuals at baseline, where smaller facilities of 50 detainees reach the peak of infections earlier (day 19) than larger ones of 1000 detainees (day 69), assuming a moderate reproduction number of R(0)=3·5.[24] This may be emphasised by the incidence risks of the modelling studies [22-24] plotted in figure 2. Four studies assessed hospitalisation among the respective populations. Irvine et al. modelled hospitalisations in three different scenarios with reproduction numbers between R(0)=2·5 and R(0)=7·0.[24] For the most pessimistic scenario (R(0)=7), models show that 15·1% of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees would need hospitalisation. For a facility housing 1000 detainees, this would mean a range of hospitalisation numbers between 10 and 117 at day 30 and between 114 and 157 at day 90 across all scenarios.[24] Truelove et al. estimated 4·8% (95%PI, 0·3%-15%) of 600.000 Rohingya refugees living in a camp to be severe cases and in need of hospitalisation across the transmission scenarios.[23] The authors calculated with reproduction rates between R(0)=1·5 and R(0)=5·0, also reaching up to 15% of hospitalisations in the worst case scenario.[23] The model also computed the point in time when needs exceed the hospital capacity at the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site in Bangladesh. In the low transmission scenario, this is the case after 136 days (95%PI, 96-196 days), and in the high transmission scenario after 55 days (95%PI, 42-77 days.).[23] Among the observational studies Bojorquez et al. found a tendency of lower odds to be hospitalised in migrants in transit and asylum seekers in Mexico (adjusted OR for confirmed cases: 0·18 (CI95%, 0·2-1·53) compared to the Mexican population.[16] In contrast, the odds of interstate migrants was 1·36 (95%CI, 1·19-1·54) times the odds of hospitalisation than the reference (Mexican) population.[25] About 6·49% of all hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 cases in Mexico from 28th February until 21st April 2020 were interstate migrants.[25] However, the IRR for hospitalisation in state cluster populations with a higher proportion of migrants showed an inverse association (IRR: 0·65, 95%CI 0·58-0·74).[25] A study among patient populations in Spain reports a 3-, 6-, and 7-fold higher risk among patients from Sub-Saharan-Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America, respectively, of being PCR confirmed cases or being hospitalised compared to the Spanish patients.[17] ### 3.3 ICU admission ICU admission was only reported by modelling studies. Irvine et al. found approximately 1·8% of the ICE detainee-population in need of ICU after 90 days of detention assuming a low transmission scenario R(0)=2·5, and approximately 2·3% within the same time within a high transmission scenario R(0)=7.[24] In comparison, the simulations of Trulove et al. result in lower estimates for ICU transmission in Rohingya refugees after three months’ time, while using lower reproduction rates.[23] Cumulative numbers of ICU admissions are ranging from 6 (0-30) to 4 440 (98-10 100) across the scenarios, which accounts for 0·0%-0·7% of the Rohingya refugee population.[23] Hariri and colleagues calculate with a doubling rate of 2·3 leading to 12 000 (1%) critical cases in need of ICU admission among IDPs in camps and tented settlements along the Turkey-Syria border.[22] Moreover, their scenario estimates a 50% overload of ICU capacity within the fourth week.[22] Only one study used empirical instead of modelling data to investigate the need of intubation within a patient population and reports that 12·5% of migrants need intubation. However, due to a high number of missing values, these results are to be interpreted with caution.[16] Risk conditions in this specific study population seemed to be less among migrants except for the case of pregnant women.[16] ### 3.4 Mortality Five studies address mortality as an outcome variable. Proportions of migrants with a fatal outcome in the studied populations vary from 0·48% to 6·0% across the studies. The modelling study of Truelove et al. shows the lowest fatality rate with 0·48% (95%PI, 0·03%-1·5%) assuming that 10% of severe cases result in death.[23] The model of Hariri and colleagues predicts 1·6% (n= 18 751) deaths within the first six weeks upon infection.[22] The authors mention that numbers might be higher due to a lack of health facility capacity in northwest Syria for the treatment of severe and critical cases.[22] Non-modelling studies report a mortality rate among interstate migrants of 4·75% (95%CI, 4·06-5·43) with an odds ratio for fatal outcomes of 2·01 (95%CI, 1·46-2·76) compared to average state-cluster characteristics.[25] The IRR for lethality in state-clusters with higher proportions of migrants (IRR: 1·02, 95%CI, 0·98-1·02) showed a mild tendency to be higher in these populations.[25] Guijarro et al. investigate SARS-CoV-2 cases at a hospital in Alcorcón, Spain, finding 33% of severe cases in migrants (defined by country of origin) compared to 63% in the Spanish population.[17] Severe cases include death, critical care admission, and hospital stay longer than 7 days. Unadjusted mortality among severe cases was at 6% in the migrant and 25% among the Spanish population.[17] Motta et al. also found a lower mortality rate in migrants (2·3%, n=1, N=43) compared to non-migrants (26·9%, n=7, N=26) in the investigated study population of tuberculosis patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.[27] ### 3.5 Mental health outcomes and well-being Mental and social wellbeing among different migrant groups was assessed in five studies. Kumar and colleagues found 73·5% out of 98 migrant workers in India to be screened positive for depression, anxiety, and/or perceived stress due to pandemic and lockdown measures measured by PHQ2, GAD2 and PSS-4 questionnaires.[28] In line with that, Qiu et al. assessed psychological levels of distress among Chinese people during the COVID-19 pandemic finding the highest level of distress among migrant workers compared to other, non-migratory occupation groups.[29] Impact on social and socio-psychological wellbeing was assessed among international students in central China’s Hubei province, showing that almost a quarter of the study population talked about the virus in regular conversations and almost half of the study population was unhappy due to the current lockdown condition.[30] Moreover, migrant workers in India reported a deterioration of social-wellbeing with 63·3% reporting increased loneliness and about half of the participants indicating a significant increase in negative feelings such as tension, frustration, irritability, and fear of death.[28] Reduction of sleep and social connectedness affected about one third of the participating migrant workers in the same study.[28] Another topic investigated by Lopez-Pena and colleagues were health behaviours of Rohingya refugees during the COVID-19 pandemic.[31] The authors focused on health providers chosen by persons that showed symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 and at trusted information sources such as friends, newspapers or non-governmental organisations (NGO). A total of 42·3 % (95%CI 32·4-52·3) of symptomatic household members in refugee camps chose pharmacies as their first-choice health provider followed by health information providers in camps (35·8% (95%CI 26·0-45·6)).[31] Trusted information sources on COVID-19 prevention and advice among Rohingya refugees were friends, neighbours, and acquaintances (58·8% (95%CI 50·7-66·9)) followed by NGOs (53·5% (95%CI 45·6-61·3)) and informational campaigns on the streets (41·6% (95%CI 33·6-49·7)).[31] Rzymski and colleagues assessed prejudices against Chinese students studying at a university in Poland to assess social wellbeing.[32] According to the survey, 61·2% of participants said that they experienced prejudices in public transport, shopping or in restaurants and in health services due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[32] Racist behaviours were shown in preconceptions and rejective behaviours of others against Chinese international students resulting in negative impacts on their wellbeing.[32] ## 4. Discussion This systematic review has demonstrated a high heterogeneity of health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in migrant and forcibly displaced populations, who are in turn a heterogenous group exposed to a wide range of living conditions. Compared to various non-migrant reference groups, the incidence risks reported among migrant and forcibly displaced populations tend to be consistently higher, while hospitalisation rates and ICU admissions seem to be lower among migrants. However, most findings for the latter are derived from modelling studies and may thus only approximate reality as, e.g. hospital bed and ICU capacity were not always considered. As expected based on knowledge from studies in general populations, the different transmission scenarios in modelling studies show an exponential increase in SARS-CoV-2 cases after the start of transmission within a migrant population. There was no substantial gain in evidence regarding mortality rates as results were mixed. Crude mortality rates derived from observational studies were higher among patient populations compared to population-based studies, but overall were lower among migrants compared to non-migrant populations. In contrast, a population-based study at moderate risk of bias found a higher lethality in populations with a higher proportion of migrants when adjusted for age and gender. All migrant and forcibly displaces populations investigated by the included studies, were exposed to precarious living and working conditions and hence were at a higher risk of becoming infected or severe cases. In addition, the evidence consistently suggests that mental health is negatively impacted by the pandemic situation across all migrant groups considered by this review. Apart from the reduction in social connectedness, migrant workers no longer have job security and are therefore strongly affected by lockdown measures. However, as there is a lack of comparative studies assessing whether migrants and forcibly displaced populations suffer to a different extent from the pandemic measures compared to native reference populations, generalised conclusions cannot yet be drawn in this respect. Overall, we found a heterogeneous and fragmented research landscape studying the health of migrants and forcibly displaced populations during the COVID-19 pandemic, few high-quality studies, and a scarcity of comparative designs. There is a need for more analytical studies using robust comparative study design to monitor inequalities regarding exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or related pandemic policies. This requires a strengthening of health information systems, that however, due to weak capacities, are falling short of instantly generating and providing health information data on migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and IDPs.[33] Moreover, no qualitative studies were available at the time our search was conducted. Many researchers and organisations already called for the integration of vulnerable population groups such as refugees and migrants into national policy plans [34-36] and qualitative studies are instrumental to provide insights into realities of migrant and forcibly displaced population groups during the pandemic. At structural level, and as long as medical remedies are absent, improving living conditions of these groups by ensuring preconditions that allow for self-isolation, physical distancing, and hygiene[37] appear to be the best preventive policy measures to protect migrants and forcibly displaced populations from being particularly exposed to SARS-CoV-2. ### 4.1 Strengths and limitations To our knowledge, and beyond a bibliometric analysis of SARS-CoV-2 research and migration[38], this is the first review to investigate empirical data available on migrant populations at this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. The conception of this review as a rapid systematic review made it possible to conduct search, screening, quality appraisal, data extraction and synthesis in a timely manner. At the same time, we had to compromise by restricting the study languages to English and German, which poses a possible limitation to identify all empirical data available on this topic so far. The heterogeneity of studies did not allow for running a meta-analysis with pooled estimates to gain further knowledge about the incidence risk in migrant populations. Furthermore, the body of evidence included is limited by a scarcity of high-quality studies and prone to a wide range of bias (hospital bias, diagnostic bias, selection bias, and misclassification bias) or residual confounding. Mortality studies, for example, did not always adjust for age and comorbidity when comparing migrants and non-migrants (see detailed risk of bias assessment: Appendix C). The inclusion of pre-prints, comments, or letters to the editor reporting empirical data was also a challenge for quality appraisal. Nevertheless, this was necessary in order to find as much empirical data as possible, at the early stage of the pandemic when our search was conducted. Given the dynamic number of SARS-CoV-2 related publications, updates of the rapid review will be required in regular intervals to synthesise and consider emerging evidence. ## 4.2 Conclusion The summarised evidence in this first systematic review on SARS-CoV-2 among migrant and forcibly displaced populations shows high incidence risks among migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and IDPs, yet low hospital admission rates, and mixed mortality-related results. Due to the tenuous and heterogenous data situation on which the review is based on, results need to be interpreted with caution. In view of the general scarcity of health data on migrant and forcibly displaced populations, the pandemic might rather be a barrier than a facilitator to improve the body of evidence. More robust and comparative study designs are urgently needed to assess differences and inequalities in risk of infection, consequences of disease, contextual risk factors, and impact of pandemic policies among migrants and forcibly displaced populations. This might include strengthening of health information systems and integration of these groups in notification and reporting systems at all levels of the healthcare system. ## Supporting information APPENDIX_A [[supplements/248152_file02.zip]](pending:yes) APPENDIX_B [[supplements/248152_file03.zip]](pending:yes) APPENDIX_C1 [[supplements/248152_file04.zip]](pending:yes) APPENDIX_C2 [[supplements/248152_file05.zip]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All Data referred to in the Manuscript is already published either as peer-reviewed article, comment, letter to the editor or as pre-print. ## Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. ## Author Contributions Search: Pubmed and WoS: SR; preprint servers: MH; Websites: MT and KK Title and abstract screening: HG, MH Full-text screening: HG, MH, JS, CSH, KB Quality appraisal: MH, KB Dataextraction: MH, KB Data-synthesis: MH, KB Writing of first and final draft: MH, KB Revision for important intellectual content: JS, MT, SR, HG, KK, C-SH ## Competing interests The work has been conducted in the scope of the German Competence Net Public Health Covid-19. The authors state that they have no competing interests. ## Ethics statement The study is based on published literature, no ethical clearance was required. ## Acknowledgments None. * Received December 14, 2020. * Revision received December 14, 2020. * Accepted December 14, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Bozorgmehr K, Saint V, Kaasch A et al. (2020) COVID and the convergence of three crises in Europe. The Lancet Public Health 5(5):e247–e248 2. 2.Schenker MB (2010) A global perspective of migration and occupational health. American journal of industrial medicine 53(4):329–337 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ajim.20834&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20196095&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F12%2F14%2F2020.12.14.20248152.atom) 3. 3.Organization WH (2020) Report of the WHO-China joint mission on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Geneva 4. 4.Hargreaves S, Rustage K, Nellums LB et al. (2019) Occupational health outcomes among international migrant workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health 7(7):e872–e882 5. 5.Lancet T (2020) India under COVID-19 lockdown. Lancet (London, England) 395(10233):1315 6. 6.Sze S, Pan D, Nevill CR et al. (2020) Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine:100630-100630 7. 7.Tai DBG, Shah A, Doubeni CA et al. (2020) The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases 8. 8.Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C et al. (2020) Cochrane rapid reviews. Interim guidance from the Cochrane rapid reviews methods Group. March 9. 9.Hintermeier M, Kajikhina K, Rohleder S et al. (2020) Refugees and migrants and COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. PROSPERO (CRD42020195633) 10. 10.Bennett C, Manuel DG (2012) Reporting guidelines for modelling studies. BMC medical research methodology 12(1):168 11. 11.Saltelli A, Bammer G, Bruno I et al. (2020) Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto. Nature Publishing Group 12. 12.Egger M, Johnson L, Althaus C et al. (2017) Developing WHO guidelines: time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies. F1000Research 6 13. 13.Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Balk EM et al. (2016) Guidance for the conduct and reporting of modeling and simulation studies in the context of health technology assessment Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 14. 14.Nyaga, Nyaga V, Arbyn M et al. (2014) Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Archives of Public Health 72 15. 15.(2020) Competence Network Public Health Covid-19 [https://www.public-health-covid19.de/en/](https://www.public-health-covid19.de/en/) (last accessed: 30.11.2020) 16. 16.Bojorquez I, Infante C, Vieitez I et al. (2020) MIGRANTS IN TRANSIT AND ASYLUM SEEKERS IN MEXICO: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. medRxiv:2020.2005.2008.20095604 17. 17.Guijarro C, Perez-Fernandez E, Gonzalez-Pineiro B et al. (2020) Risk for COVID-19 among Migrants from different areas of the world in Spain: A population-based cohort study in a country with universal health coverage. medRxiv:2020.2005.2025.20112185 18. 18.Koh D (2020) Migrant workers and COVID-19. Occupational and environmental medicine 19. 19.Chew MH, Koh FH, Wu JT et al. (2020) Clinical assessment of COVID-19 outbreak among migrant workers residing in a large dormitory in Singapore. The Journal of hospital infection 20. 20.Leutert S, Arvey S, Ezzell E et al. (2020) Metering & COVID-19 21. 21.TRAC (2019) Details on MPP (Remain in Mexico) Deportation Proceedings 22. 22.Hariri M, Rihawi H, Safadi S et al. (2020) THE COVID-19 FORECAST IN NORTHWEST SYRIA The Imperative of Global Action to Avoid Catastrophe. medRxiv:2020.2005.2007.20085365 23. 23.Truelove S, Abrahim O, Altare C et al. (2020) The potential impact of COVID-19 in refugee camps in Bangladesh and beyond: A modeling study. PLoS medicine 17(6):e1003144 24. 24.Irvine M, Coombs D, Skarha J et al. (2020) Modeling COVID-19 and Its Impacts on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facilities, 2020. Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine:1–9 25. 25.Mendez-Dominguez N, Alvarez-Baeza A, Carrillo G (2020) Demographic and Health Indicators in Correlation to Interstate Variability of Incidence, Confirmation, Hospitalization, and Lethality in Mexico: Preliminary Analysis from Imported and Community Acquired Cases during COVID-19 Outbreak. International journal of environmental research and public health 17(12) 26. 26.Ly TDA, van Hoang T, Goumballa N et al. (2020) Screening of SARS-CoV-2 among homeless people, asylum seekers and other people living in precarious conditions in Marseille, France, March April 2020. medRxiv:2020.2005.2005.20091934 27. 27.Motta I, Centis R, D’Ambrosio L et al. (2020) Tuberculosis, COVID-19 and migrants: preliminary analysis of deaths occurring in 69 patients from two cohorts. Pulmonology 28. 28.Kumar K, Mehra A, Sahoo S et al. (2020) The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on the migrant workers: A cross-sectional survey. Asian J Psychiatr 53:102252 29. 29.Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M et al. (2020) A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. General psychiatry 33(2) 30. 30.Fakhar-e-Alam Kulyar M, Bhutta ZA, Shabbir S et al. (2020) Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 outbreak on international students living in Hubei province, China. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease:101712 31. 31.Lopez-Pena P, Davis CA, Mobarak AM et al. (2020) Prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms, risk factors, and health behaviors in host and refugee communities in Cox’s Bazar: A representative panel study. Bull World Health Organ 32. 32.Rzymski P, Nowicki M (2020) COVID-19-related prejudice toward Asian medical students. Journal of Infection and Public Health 13(6):873–876 33. 33.Organization WH (2019) Health Evidence Network synthesis report 66: what is the evidence on availability and integration of refugee and migrant health data in health information systems in the WHO European region? 34. 34.Bhopal RS (2020) COVID-19: Immense necessity and challenges in meeting the needs of minorities, especially asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. Public Health 182:161 35. 35.Lancet T (2020) COVID-19 will not leave behind refugees and migrants. Lancet (London, England) 395(10230):1090 36. 36.Tallarek M, Bozorgmehr K, Spallek J (2020) Toward inclusionary and diversity-sensitive public health: the consequences of exclusionary othering in public health using the example of COVID-19 management in German reception centers and asylum camps. BMJ Global Health:In Press 37. 37.Orcutt M, Patel P, Burns R et al. (2020) Global call to action for inclusion of migrants and refugees in the COVID-19 response. Lancet (London, England) 395(10235):1482–1483 38. 38.Pernitez-Agan S, Bautista MA, Lopez J et al. (2020) Bibliometric Analysis of COVID-19 in the Context of Migration Health: A Study Protocol. medRxiv:2020.2007.2009.20149401