Page 10 - IJPS-10-4

International Journal of
Population Studies Healthcare access and use among rural–urban migrants

(iv) Papers reporting on health system interventions 3. Results
to improve access to and utilization of healthcare
among internal migrants in Ghana. 3.1. Extent of the literature
• Exclusion criteria The initial search identified a total of 932 papers, including
805 from the electronic database search and 127 from a
The following criteria were excluded from the study: manual search. After removing duplicate articles, 801
(i) Papers not conducted in English but in other remained. A total of 729 articles were removed during
languages. the abstract and title screening, leaving 72 for full-
(ii) Papers reporting on internal migrants’ health in text screening. The full-text screening resulted in the
countries other than Ghana. exclusion of 56 articles. These papers were excluded for
the following reasons: lack of focus on facilitators and
2.4. Extract and chart data barriers to healthcare (n = 28), lack of focus on internal

A data extraction form was designed using a Microsoft migrants in Ghana (n = 19), and not reporting on health
Excel spreadsheet with the following column headings: system interventions to improve health among the internal
author, publication year, country, aim/purpose, study migrants (n = 9). In total, 16 eligible studies were included
sample, study design, study outcomes, and main in the final analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 3)
findings. This form was designed to extract relevant depicts the stages of study identification and selection.
information from the selected articles. This process 3.2. Nature of the literature
served as the foundation for appraising, analyzing,
summarizing, and interpreting findings that correspond A detailed description of the study characteristics is
to the aim and research question of scoping reviews presented in Table 2. The publications came from the
(Büchter et al., 2020). research fields of global and public health, social science,
and policy disciplines. Thirteen (n = 13 [81%]) were original
2.5. Collate, summarize, and report findings peer-reviewed journal articles, while 3 (19%) were theses.
We conducted a quantitative descriptive summary analysis The study designs and methods from all identified sources
and a qualitative thematic analysis of the selected eligible were clearly described. A total of 5092 internal migrants
papers. This process involved identifying themes in the were included in the 16 studies. Most (n = 12 [75%])
selected papers and summarizing the key results in a publications focused on female migrants, while 4 (25%)
summary table, with each result under a thematic heading included a mix of male and female migrants. All 16 (100%)
(Molyneux et al., 2012). studies focused on internal migrants’ experiences with
both public and private health facilities.
2.6. Quality assessment and assurance
3.3. Thematic findings
Two reviewers independently applied the eligibility
criteria to screen the full text of the selected titles and Several health-system and individual-level factors were
abstracts. The eligibility criteria provided clear guidelines identified in the included studies as barriers to accessing
and consistency in the selection process (Arksey & and utilizing health-care services among internal migrants.
O’Malley, 2005). This application minimized the risk of Summary of result is shown in Table 3.
error and, thus, enhanced the credibility of the review 3.3.1. Barriers to health-care utilization among
findings (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The reviewers internal migrants
compared results and reached a consensus after each stage
of the selection process, with a third reviewer serving as All 16 eligible studies (Akazili et al., 2018; Asaana, 2015;
a tiebreaker in instances where the two reviewers failed Baada et al., 2021; Boateng, 2020; Boateng et al., 2017;
to reach an agreement. After full screening, the data were Lattof, 2017; Lattof, 2018; Munemo et al., 2021; Nyarko &
entered into the designed data extraction spreadsheet Tahiru, 2018; Owusu-Ansah et al., 2016; Owusu & Yeboah,
using Microsoft Excel. The data were reported using 2018; Rizwan et al., 2022; Shamsu-Deen & Adadow,
the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews 2019; Sznajder et al., 2020; Teye, 2019; Yiran et al., 2015)
and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reported on barriers to accessing and utilizing health-care
guidelines by Tricco et al. (2016:16b). The risk of bias of services among the internal migrants. These barriers have
the eligible studies was not assessed as this review is not been grouped into eight sub-themes, as presented below.
a systematic review. However, the quality of the selected (a) Infrastructural barriers to health-care utilization
studies was not compromised by strictly applying the Seven articles (Baada et al., 2021; Boateng et al.,
eligibility criteria. 2017; Munemo et al., 2021; Owusu & Yeboah, 2018;

Volume 10 Issue 4 (2024) 4 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.2314