Integrating human rights approaches into public health practices
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Open Access
Integrating human rights approaches into public health practices and policies to address health needs amongst Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh: a systematic review and meta-ethnographic analysis Nidhi Wali1*, Wen Chen2, Lal B. Rawal3, A. S. M. Amanullah4 and Andre M. N. Renzaho5
Abstract
Background: The Rohingya people of Myanmar are one of the most persecuted communities in the world and are forced to flee their home to escape conflict and persecution. Bangladesh receives the majority of the Rohingya refugees. On arrival they experience a number of human rights issues and the extent to which human rights approaches are used to inform public health programs is not well documented. The aim of this systematic review was to document human rights- human rights-related health issues and to develop a conceptual human rights framework to inform current policy practice and programming in relation to the needs of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.
Methods: This systematic review was conducted using the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eight computerized databases were searched: Academic Search complete, Embase, CINAHL, JStor, Pubmed, Scopus, SocIndex, and Proquest Central along with grey literature and Google Scholar. Of a total of 752 articles retrieved from the eight databases and 17 studies from grey literature, 31 studies met our inclusion criteria.
Results: Using meta-ethnographic synthesis, we developed a model that helps understand the linkages of various human rights and human rights-related health issues of Rohingya refugees. The model highlights how insufficient structural factors, poor living conditions, restricted mobility, and lack of working rights for extended periods of time collectively contribute to poor health outcomes of Rohingya refugees.
Conclusion: This review provides a human-rights approach to frame actions both at program and policy level in a sustained way to address the health needs of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Such policy actions will focus on finding long term solutions for integrating the Rohingya population while addressing their immediate rights issue.
Trial registration: This systematic review has not been registered.
Keywords: Bangladesh, Health, Human rights, Rohingya, Refugees, Refugee camps, Statelessness
- Correspondence: N.Wali@westernsydney.edu.au 1Humanitarian and Development Research Initiative, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, New South Wales 2751, Australia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-018-0305-1
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s13690-018-0305-1&domain=pdf
mailto:N.Wali@westernsydney.edu.au
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Introduction The global refugee crisis has led to a sharp increase in the number of forcibly displaced population from 59.5 million in 2014 to 65.6 million in 2016 [1, 2]. Additionally, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) esti- mates that at least 10 million people were stateless or at a risk of statelessness in 2016 [2]. While the term “refugee” is used to describe any person unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted [3], a stateless person is someone who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law [4]. Accessing basic rights such as healthcare, em- ployment, education and freedom of movement is often im- possible for stateless people. Lack, denial or loss of nationality underlies the exclusion of affected individuals from membership in the community, to the point of insti- gating discrimination and oppression in certain cases. [2, 4] The Rohingya people of Myanmar are one of the lar-
gest groups of stateless refugees in the world [5] ac- counting to one in seven of the global population of stateless people [6]. Majority of the Rohingya people are not considered to be citizens by the Myanmar Govern- ment, which argues that Rohingya people are originally from Bangladesh [7, 8]. In order to avoid conflict and persecution, Rohingya refugees have been fleeing Myanmar in large numbers to nearby countries, primar- ily Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand. Bangladesh has been the preferred destination for Rohingya refugees due to the close proximity and matching religion [9]. Since 1948, Bangladesh has hosted a majority of Rohingya ref- ugees as they came to Bangladesh in three major in- fluxes in 1977–78, 1992 and 2016–17 [10, 11]. Initially the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) positively received the Rohingya refugees and provided adequate support including relief, temporary shelters, food, medical care, and sanitation. However, after 1992 influx of over 250,000 refugees, the GoB attempted a large scale repat- riation of Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar. Since this repatriation was not entirely voluntary, many of the repatriate Rohingya refugees returned back to Bangladesh within a decade post repatriation [5, 12]. Consequently, Rohingya refugees entering Bangladesh
after 1992 were not officially recognized as refugees by the GoB and despite the repeated influx of Rohingya ref- ugees entering Bangladesh only around 33,000 Rohingya are recognised as official registered refugees and reside in two official UNHCR-led official camps in Cox Bazaar district [13]. While more than 200,000 unregistered refu- gees living in unofficial makeshift camps [13]. Addition- ally, recent increase in violence in Myanmar has caused large numbers of Rohingya refugees to cross the border to Bangladesh, making the total number of new arrivals to 620,000 in November 2017 [11], most of whom are undocumented refugees.
With more than twenty years of continuous camp settle- ments, the current Rohingya refugee situation in Bangladesh has become one of the most protracted in the world [9]. Bangladesh is not a signatory to the 1951 Refu- gee Convention or its 1967 Protocol and neither is it party to the 1954 and 1961 Convention on Statelessness [5]. The poor socioeconomic condition in Bangladesh with poverty, over population and susceptibility to natural di- sasters and climate change further complicates finding a durable solution for the Rohingya refugees in the region [14, 15]. The focus of program and policy has been to pro- vide short term relief Helpance with a lack of emphasis on finding long term solutions to ensure protection and integration of Rohingya refugees. While UNHCR and other humanitarian actors are able to access and Help only 10% of the estimated Rohingya refugee population, those residing in the makeshift settlements or living as un- documented refugees live in emergency-like conditions and have been identified as ‘persons of concern’ by the UNHCR [5]. Whether living in makeshift settlement or registered camps or in local community areas, the Rohin- gya refugees have been deprived of their basic human rights of healthcare, employment, education and freedom of movement. They have been subject to miserable living conditions marked by exposure to violence, local hostility, and various forms of discrimination [9]. These conditions have also important public health implications for the Rohingya refugees, where the World Health Organisation (WHO) has graded the present health situation in Cox Bazaar at level three i.e. the highest possible emergency condition [16]. Despite these challenges, there is limited understand-
ing of the complex interplay of human rights issues and health outcomes and a lack of an appropriate human rights framework to inform public health interventions. This study aims to comprehensively document and re- view human rights-related health issues of Rohingya ref- ugees living in Bangladesh. Thus it attempts to develop a human rights framework that can serve as a useful tool for program and policy for improved health outcomes.
Methods Search strategy For the purpose of this study, health is defined as the overall well-being [17]. Article 23 of UNHCR’s 1951 Convention, mandates that refugees are to have guaran- teed access to public relief services, including health, on par with host country citizens [18]. Conceptualised ac- cording to the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Sys- tematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines [19], this systematic review considered both peer reviewed and grey literature [20, 21]; and included a combination of mixed methods, qualitative and quantitative. A list of relevant text words and/or corresponding controlled
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 Page 2 of 14
vocabulary according to each database was generated and used to comprehensively search eight computerized bibliographic databases: Academic Search complete, Embase, CINAHL, JStor, Medline, Scopus, SocIndex, and Proquest Central. The following combination of subject headings and keywords were used: Equal right* [MeSH/Subject Heading] OR Health OR
Human right OR Human right violation* OR exploit- ation of human* OR human trafficking. AND Refugee*[MeSH/Subject Heading] OR Rohingya women
OR Rohingya refugee OR Burmese refugee* OR Rohingya Muslim. AND Bangladesh* [MeSH/Subject Heading] OR Bangladesh
region* OR Bangladesh refugee camp*. Additionally, key words were used for searching grey
literature in key organisations websites, including of Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)- A Legal aid and Human Rights Organisation, Amnesty International, Asian Human Rights Commission, Bangladeshi Red Crescent Society- International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Human Rights Watch, International Organisation of Migration (IOM), Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, United Nations organisations in- cluding United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and World Food Program [22]. Google scholar was searched to include any missed articles and reports. Reference lists of all documents were further scanned for any relevant articles and reports.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Included in this paper were peer-reviewed papers, reports, working papers, and theses or dissertations published in English between 1960 to July 2017; that focused on health and human rights issues of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Editorials, opinion pieces, books and book re- views and papers published in a language other than Eng- lish were not included. As the scope of this research is limited to the Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh, re- ports and articles outside this scope were equally ex- cluded. The study did not attempt a multi country review that includes the other receiving countries such as Malaysia and Thailand due to dissimilarities in states’ pol- icies which have varied in different time frames [23]. We set 1960 as the baseline year because after the military coup in Myanmar in 1962 the Rohingya refugees started migrating in Bangladesh to escape persecution and human rights violations. They were forced to leave Myanmar, then Burma, to seek security in neighbouring nations of Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand [24, 25].
Study selection process The researchers followed a three staged screening ap- proach to examine the studies eligibility for inclusion. Studies were screened by title to eliminate any duplicates followed by screening of titles to remove any obviously irrelevant studies followed by screening of abstracts to confirm eligibility and relevance. Study selection process is summarised in Fig. 1. A total of 752 articles were re- trieved from eight databases. After removal of dupli- cates, 734 articles were retained. A screening of titles resulted in exclusion of 662 articles. The abstract of the remaining 72 articles were read and screened which led to exclusion of 53 articles. The full texts for the remaining 19 articles were reviewed: seven articles were further excluded and 12 articles were deemed eligible for final inclusion of which nine were peer reviewed articles and three were reports. Additionally, grey literature search including screening of organisation websites and google scholar provided another 17 reports. Full text screening of the reports led to the exclusion of five re- ports. A manual search of the bibliographic references of all the retained articles and reports identified an add- itional six reports and one article, thereby a total of 10 articles and 21 reports were included for final review. The final results were compared to ensure that a con-
sistent approach was taken to evaluating the literature based selection criteria. In cases of discrepancy, consen- sus was agreed through discussion by two researchers (NW and WC) and where necessary, reviewed by the third researcher (AR).
Data extraction and synthesis Two researchers (NW and WC) independently extracted data into their endnote libraries. Data extraction was done using a piloted form. The data extracted included: study details (such as author’s name, year of publication, study design, intervention), study aims and objectives, study characteristics (including sample setting, popula- tion). Grey literature was extracted using similar details, by the primary researcher (NW) and subsequently reviewed by two researchers (NW and WC).
Quality assessment Two researchers (NW and WC) independently assessed the quality of included studies to minimise errors while maintaining consistency [26]. The methodological qual- ity for qualitative studies was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria tool [27]. The CASP tool is commonly used for quality appraisal of qualitative studies [28–30]. The included qualitative studies were rated on a ten point criteria, including study aims, methodology, design, recruitment strategy, data collection, reflexivity, ethical issues, data analysis rigour, clear statement of findings and research value.
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 Page 3 of 14
The Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used as a guide to assess the quality of the quantitative studies reviewed [31]. The checklist consists of 22 items, after the initial assessment of all reviewed studies based on the 22 STROBE items, the items were further collapsed into 7 quality-appraisal criteria: sample size, sampling method- ology, responses rate, outcome measures, statistical ana- lyses, study limitation and ethical consideration. Mixed methods studies were assessed based on the MMAT (mixed methods appraisal tool) by Pluye and colleagues [32], using a three point criteria of objective, data collec- tion and results. Although MMAT is new and under de- velopment it has substantive theoretical validity, is content validated and has been tested for efficiency and reliability [33, 34]. Grey literature was appraised with the AACODS tool that looks at authority, accuracy,
coverage, objectivity, date and significance [35]. This tool is being widely recognised by academicians and re- searchers for appraisal of grey literature. The primary re- searcher (NW) read the full text of eligible studies and rated each study based on the quality criteria. The sec- ondary researcher (WC) rated a random sample of 13 studies of 31 studies. The scores given by the two re- searchers were compared and any concerns and discrep- ancies were resolved with discussion amongst the two researchers (NW and WC) and unresolved discrepancies were independently reviewed by the third researcher (AR).
Analysis Due to the heterogeneity of the included quantitative studies in terms of design, settings, and objectives, a meta-ethnographic approach was adopted to synthesise
Fig. 1 Study selection process
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 Page 4 of 14
the qualitative data, which was complemented by a de- scriptive narration of findings for the quantitative studies [36]. The meta-ethnographic approach allowed the ana- lysis to develop a line of research argument synthesis by systematic translation and comparison between studies. The line-of-argument syntheses enables to create new models, theories, or understanding rather than a de- scription of the synthesised papers [36]. All studies were included in the synthesis, where findings from the quali- tative studies were juxtaposed with those of quantitative studies as part of the triangulation process. The meta-ethnographic approach involved four stages:
Identifying metaphors and themes The studies were read and re-read to gain familiarity with the data and identify themes and patterns in each study. The data were extracted from each of the study verbatim to ensure not to lose any important data. This was validated by revisiting the aims of the study. This process further facilitated in identifying the themes and sub-themes for each study, which were usually found in the results section of the studies.
Determining how the studies are related The thematic analysis for all studies was compared to determine how they are related. Even though they were
a large number of studies (n = 31) the findings of studies had commonalities that contributed in identifying com- mon categories of how the studies are related. For ex- ample, structural factors, political and economic factors, social factors, health and well-being and so on.
Reciprocal translation of studies We compared the themes and sub-themes of one study to that of another study and so on across all studies. Transla- tion entails comparison and matching of themes across papers to ensure that the key themes across studies are captured. This also ensured to reduce and streamline the themes while identifying them with each of the categories as mentioned in the above step. The primary researcher (NW) undertook these steps with regular consultation with the other authors (WC and AR).
Synthesizing translations The process of translation between studies was followed by new interpretation of data and developing a line of ar- gument. The team formed the line of argument and pro- duced a model (Fig. 2) with the description of findings.
Results A total of 10 articles and 21 reports were included for the final review, as shown in Fig. 1. Most of the studies
Fig. 2 Description of findings
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 Page 5 of 14
included were qualitative. However, studies identifying health issues of Rohingya refugees were predominantly quantitative and contributed positively to the overall find- ings. It is useful to highlight that major studies in the re- view are those conducted in the official refugee camps. The camps referred to in the findings are these official camps and additional findings from unofficial or makeshift camps are clearly identified otherwise see Tables 1 and 2. Findings indicate that a combination of underlying
and immediate human rights issues at macro and meso levels respectively interacted to negatively affect the health of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Human rights-related health issues were identified at three dif- ferent levels: underlying human rights issues (societal level), immediate human rights issues, (household/com- munity level), and health outcomes (individual level).
Underlying human rights issues: Societal level The underlying human rights issues were mainly struc- tural factors, including legal and administrative barriers, issues related to protection and safety, and restriction of aid. Indeed, Bangladesh is not a signatory of the Conven- tion and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 [5], and has no legal obligation to protect or safeguard the refugees and asylum within the country. The absence of a national refugee and asylum seekers legal and administra- tive framework means that Rohingya refugees are exposed to serious protection risks with limited opportunities. Our findings suggest that Rohingya refugees experienced
violence and abuse perpetrated at various levels, within the official camps and outside the camps [5, 37–41]. Violence and abuse have been perpetrated by
� The camp administration, police, and refugee block leaders, mahjee: as illustrated by a female refugee, ‘I have reported [my problem] five times to the UNHCR. In my eyes, the UNHCR and the mahjee [block leader] and the police are the same’, [42].
� Employers and local community outside the camp, as a female refugee summed it up: ‘He asked me to bring tea to his bedroom. I felt very uncomfortable but again I had no choice. So I prepared the tea and went to the bedroom. The owner then suddenly locked the room … and I tried to run away, but he grabbed me hard. At first I tried to shout and fight, but then I realised that I would lose my job. So I gave up the fight and reluctantly let him do what he wanted. I was not able to share this story with anyone because I would not only lose my job, but also be socially stigmatised.’ [24].
Additionally, the camps witnessed increased female- headed households due to abandonment by husbands and family separation due to displacement increasing
their vulnerabilities [43, 44]. A single mother of eight noted: ‘When my husband passed away, everything turned dark. My main concern was about my children. The limited amount of ration was not sufficient for my family’s survival. I started searching for work. Being a woman in a new land and environment, it was very chal- lenging in every aspect’ [24]. Our findings suggest that the GoB did not wish to im-
prove the living conditions and provide safety to the ref- ugees. In 2016, the GoB put restrictions on the aid distributed to newly arrived refugees because it argued that aid distribution would lead to an increase in the influx of newly-arrived refugees [43, 45]. It noted: “Distribution of relief among the refugees will encourage more Rohingyas to enter the country” [43]. Another im- portant structural factor that violated the rights of Rohingya refugees is forced repatriation. For example, in 1992 and 1998 the GoB planned a repatriation drive for the return of refugees to Myanmar. The repatriation was not voluntary and beatings and other physical abuse by camp administration and GoB were common to persuade refugees to voluntarily depart [5, 6, 38, 40–42, 46–50]. According to a MSF survey, 63% of refugees re- patriated during the 1990s under the voluntary repatriation drive by the GoB did not want to return to Myanmar [42]. Involuntary repatriation also caused families to disintegrate as their family members were forced to leave, as highlighted by a male refugee, ‘We were with nine in my family. Six were repatriated by force by the camp police. They took my wife, our two children, my brother, father, and mother. My two brothers and I were somewhere else in the camp when our family was taken’ [42].
Immediate human rights issues: Household/community level Political and economic Over the many years spent in camps, Rohingya refugees have had restricted mobility and in some cases have not been allowed to go outside the camps without an official permit, primarily to meet a family member in another camp or for medical reasons. These restrictions severely affected their basic rights of mobility, access to liveli- hoods, food, water, sanitation, and education. Refugees were not allowed to work outside the camps, but with very limited opportunities within the camps, economic constraints and limited food rations many were forced to seek employment illegally outside the camp. This fur- ther exposed them to serious risks including: the need to bribe camp authorities to go out as they are prohibited otherwise; harassment by the local police who often tar- geted them as outsiders and arrested them for working; discrimination by local employers by paying them lower wages and also by the local people who accused the Rohingya refugees for taking away their jobs. These re- strictions also forced some refugees to live outside
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 Page 6 of 14
Ta b le
1 C ha ra ct er is tic s of
pe er
re vi ew
ed st ud
ie s
St ud
y Ti tle
A im
s St ud
y de
si gn
Sa m pl e
In te rv en
tio n
Q ua lit y
ap pr ai sa l*
- A kh te r S,
Ku sa ka be
K. (2 01 4)
[2 4]
G en
de r- ba se d Vi ol en
ce am
on g D oc um
en te d
Ro hi ng
ya Re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh H ig hl ig ht s th e ge
nd er -b as ed
vi ol en
ce am
on g
do cu m en
te d Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
es liv in g in
th e
Ku tu pa lo ng
ca m p in
Ba ng
la de
sh .
Q ua lit at iv e, D ire ct
in te rv ie w s
N = 24
fe m al es
an d 19
m al es
N o
7/ 10
H ig h qu
al ity
- C ra bt re e, K
(2 01 0)
[4 5]
Ec on
om ic C ha lle ng
es an d C op
in g
M ec ha ni sm
s in
Pr ot ra ct ed
D is pl ac em
en t: A
C as e St ud
y of
th e Ro
hi ng
ya Re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh .
Ex pl or e th e de
si re s an d co nc er ns
of re fu ge
e po
pu la tio
ns su rv iv in g w ith
ou t ad eq
ua te
ai d in
or de
r to
ex pl or e ris ks
as so ci at ed
w ith
in co m e-
ge ne
ra tin
g ac tiv iti es
an d th e po
ss ib ili tie s fo r liv el i-
ho od
su pp
or t.
Q ua lit at iv e,
In te rv ie w s an d
fo cu s gr ou
p di sc us si on
s
N = 12 7
N o
8/ 10
H ig h qu
al ity
- Kh
an ,M
.U .&
M un
sh i, M .H .
(1 98 3)
[5 9]
C lin ic al ill ne
ss es
an d ca us es
of de
at h in
a bu
rm es e re fu ge
e ca m p in
Ba ng
la de
sh To
id en
tif y cl in ic al ill ne
ss es
an d ca us es
of de
at h
am on
gs t Bu
rm es e re fu ge
es in
Le da
ca m p in
Ba ng
la de
sh .
Q ua nt ita tiv e
N = 95 4
N o
3/ 7
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
- M ilt on
,A .H
. et
al .( 20 17 ) [9 ]
Tr ap pe
d in
st at el es sn es s: Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh H ig hl ig ht
th e Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
e cr is is in
Ba ng
la de
sh ,w
ith sp ec ia le m ph
as is on
th ei r liv in g
co nd
iti on
s.
Q ua lit at iv e,
lit er at ur e re vi ew
an d in te rv ie w s
N = 20
Ro hi ng
ya re fu ge
es an d
ot he
r st ak eh
ol de
rs
N o
8/ 10
H ig h qu
al ity
- M ah m oo
d SS
et al .( 20 16 ) [6 ]
Th e Ro
hi ng
ya pe
op le of
M ya nm
ar :h ea lth
, hu
m an
rig ht s, an d id en
tit y
O ut lin es
th e hi st or ic al ev en
ts pr ec ed
in g th is
co m pl ex
em er ge
nc y in
he al th
an d hu
m an
rig ht s.
Q ua lit at iv e
N A
N o
6/ 10
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
- Pr od
ip A la m ,M
. (2 01 7)
[5 4]
H ea lth
an d Ed uc at io na lS ta tu s of
Ro hi ng
ya Re fu ge
e C hi ld re n in
Ba ng
la de
sh Ex pl or es
th e ed
uc at io na la nd
he al th
st at us
of Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
e ch ild re n w ith
sp ec ifi c at te nt io n
to ge
nd er
is su es .
Q ua lit at iv e, ke y
in fo rm
an t
in te rv ie w s
N = 16
an d ot he
r st ak eh
ol de
rs N o
9/ 10
H ig h qu
al ity
- Ri le y, A .e t al .
(2 01 7)
[5 3]
D ai ly st re ss or s, tr au m a ex po
su re ,a nd
m en
ta l
he al th
am on
g st at el es s Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh
Ex am
in ed
tr au m a hi st or y, da ily
en vi ro nm
en ta l
st re ss or s, an d m en
ta lh
ea lth
ou tc om
es fo r
Ro hi ng
ya ad ul ts re si di ng
in Ku
tu pa lo ng
an d
N ay ap ar a re fu ge
e ca m ps
in Ba ng
la de
sh .
Q ua nt ita tiv e
N = 14 8
N o
7/ 7
H ig h qu
al ity
- Ta na be
,M .e t al .
(2 01 7)
[5 6]
Fa m ily
pl an ni ng
in re fu ge
e se tt in gs :f in di ng
s an d ac tio
ns fro
m a m ul ti- co un
tr y st ud
y A m ul ti co un
tr y as se ss m en
t to
do cu m en
t kn ow
le dg
e of
fa m ily
pl an ni ng
,b el ie fs an d
pr ac tic es
of re fu ge
es ,a nd
th e st at e of
se rv ic e
pr ov is io n.
M ix ed
-m et ho
ds Su rv ey
= 50 7
ho us eh
ol ds ;
Fa ci lit y
as se ss m en
ts = 4;
D Is = 4;
FG D pa rt ic ip an ts
= 30
N o
2/ 3
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
- U lla h A A .
(2 01 1)
[4 6]
Ro hi ng
ya Re fu ge
es to
Ba ng
la de
sh :H
is to ric al
Ex cl us io ns
an d C on
te m po
ra ry
M ar gi na liz at io n
Tr ie s to
un de
rs ta nd
th e dy na m ic s an d se ve rit y of
re po
rt ed
hu m ili at io n by
th e go
ve rn m en
t of
Ro hi ng
ya po
pu la tio
n an d th ei r m ar gi na liz at io n in
tw o ca m ps
in Ba ng
la de
sh .
M ix ed
-m et ho
ds N = 13 4
N o
2/ 3
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
10 .W
ijn ro ks ,M
. et
al .( 19 93 ) [5 8]
Su rv ei lla nc e of
th e H ea lth
an d N ut rit io na l
St at us
of Ro
hi ng
ya Re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh To
de te rm
in e th e he
al th
an d nu
tr iti on
al st at us
of Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh .
Q ua nt ita tiv e
N = 16 1, 00 0
N o
5/ 7
M ed
iu m qu
al ity
*Q ua lit y ap
pr ai sa ls co re s: (i)
Q ua lit at iv e: 0– 3 po
or qu
al ity ,4 –6
m ed
iu m
qu al ity ,7 –1 0 hi gh
qu al ity ;( ii) Q ua nt ita tiv e: 0– 2 po
or qu
al ity ,3 –5
m ed
iu m
qu al ity ,6 –7
hi gh
qu al ity ;( iii )M
ix ed
m et ho
ds :0
po or
qu al ity ,1 –2
m ed
iu m
qu al ity ,3
hi gh
qu al ity
Wali et al. Archives of Public Health (2018) 76:59 Page 7 of 14
Ta b le
2 C ha ra ct er is tic s of
re po
rt s
St ud
y Ti tle
A im
s St ud
y de
si gn
Sa m pl e
In te rv en
tio n
Q ua lit y ap pr ai sa l*
- A cc es s H ea lth
In te rn at io na l,
RT M
In te rn at io na l
H ea lth
ca re
at Ro
hi ng
ya Re fu ge
e ca m p:
A ca se
st ud
y on
RT M
In iti at iv e
C as e st ud
y of
RT M
in iti at iv es
of w or ki ng
w ith
Ro hi ng
ya re fu ge
es C as e st ud
y N A
Ye s
5/ 6
H ig h qu
al ity
- A m ne
st y
In te rn at io na l2 01 6
[4 3]
“W e ar e at
br ea ki ng
po in t” ,R oh
in gy a:
pe rs ec ut ed
in M ya nm
ar an d ne
gl ec te d
in Ba ng
la de
sh
Fa ct
fin di ng
re se ar ch
fo r st at us
an d hu
m an
rig ht s vi ol at io ns
of Ro
hi ng
ya s in
M ya nm
ar an d
Ba ng
la de
sh
Q ua lit at iv e,
D ire ct
in te rv ie w s &
ob se rv at io ns
N = 55
N o
5/ 6
H ig h qu
al ity
- A m er ic an
In te rn at io na lS ch oo
l, D ha ka ,2 00 5 [6 8]
Th e Ro
hi ng
ya Re fu ge
e si tu at io n in
Ba ng
la de
sh N ot
st at ed
Re vi ew
re po
rt N A
N o
2/ 6
Po or
qu al ity
- D an ish
Im m ig ra tio
n Se rv ic e, 20 11
[4 8]
Ro hi ng
ya re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh an d
Th ai la nd
Fa ct
fin di ng
m is si on
re la te d to
si tu at io n of
RR w ith
re ga rd s to
as yl um
cl ai m s m ad e in
D en
m ar k
Q ua lit at iv e, D ire ct
in te rv ie w s
M ul tip
le st ak eh
ol de
rs N o
6/ 6
H ig h qu
al ity
- Fo ru m
A si a, 20 03
[4 7]
“W e ar e lik e a so cc er
ba ll,
ki ck ed
by Bu
rm a, ki ck ed
by Ba ng
la de
sh !”:
Ro hi ng
ya re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh ar e
fa ci ng
a ne
w dr iv e of
in vo lu nt ar y
re pa tr ia tio
n
To hi gh
lig ht
th e fo rc ed
re pa tr ia tio
n of
RR s
Re po
rt s of
te st im
on ie s
N = 57
N o
4/ 6
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
- G aw
he r N ay ee m ,H
. (1 99 4)
[4 9]
W om
en Re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh .
Re po
rt in g of
O xf am
ac tiv iti es
in Ba ng
la de
sh .
Q ua lit at iv e re po
rt Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
es N A
3/ 6
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
- KN
O M A D ,2 01 6 [5 2]
Re fu ge
es ’R ig ht
to W or k an d A cc es s to
La bo
ur M ar ke ts – A n A ss es sm
en t
N A
N A
N A
N o
2/ 6
Po or
qu al ity
- La rk in ,E m m a &
D un
lo p,
N ic .( 20 07 )
[5 1]
Bu rm
a’ s fo rg ot te n re fu ge
es St at us
of Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
es an d re fu ge
e ca m ps
Re po
rt N A
N A
4/ 6
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
- M SF
– D oc to rs
w ith
ou t bo
rd er s,
20 02
[4 2]
Te n ye ar s of
Ro hi ng
ya Re fu ge
es in
Ba ng
la de
sh :p
as t, pr es en
t, fu tu re ,
Pr ov id es
an un
de rs ta nd
in g of
th e co nd
iti on
of th e Ro
hi ng
ya re fu ge
e no
w an d ov er
th e la st
de ca de
.
Q ua lit at iv e, Su rv ey
an d
ob se rv at io ns
N = 11 8
N o
6/ 6
H ig h qu
al ity
10 .M
SF – D oc to rs
w ith
ou t bo
rd er s,
20 07
[5 0]
Ta lm
ak es hi ft ca m p:
N o on
e sh ou
ld ha ve
to liv e lik e th is .T he
Ro hi ng
ya pe
op le
fro m
M ya nm
ar se ek in g re fu ge
in Ba ng
la de
sh
To do
cu m en
t RR
’s liv in g co nd
iti on
in a
m ak es hi ft ca m p in
Ba ng
la de
sh an d its
im pa ct
on th ei r ph
ys ic al an d m en
ta lh
ea lth
N A
N A
N o
5/ 6
H ig h qu
al ity
11 .P hy si ci an s fo r
H um
an Ri gh
ts ,
20 10
[3 9]
St at el es s an d St ar vi ng
😛 er se cu te d
Ro hi ng
ya fle e Bu
rm a an d st ar ve
in Ba ng
la de
sh
N A
Q ua lit at iv e,
co ns ul ta tio
ns an d D Is
N = 10 0
ho us eh
ol ds ,
25 RR s an d
30 ot he
r Ke y
in fo rm
an ts
N o
4/ 6
M ed
iu m
qu al ity
12 .R ef ug ee s St ud ie s
Ce nt re ,O
xf or d
U ni ve rs ity ,2 00 1 [5 5]
Ro hi ng
ya Re fu ge
e C hi ld re n in
C ox ’s
Ba za r, Ba ng
la de
sh A im
s to
pr ov id e a ba ck gr ou
nd to
th e Ro
hi ng
ya si tu at io n.
