Health Literacy of people with migration background in Germany

A new study from Germany examines health literacy of immigrants and their descendants. They focus on two specific groups: from the former Soviet Union, and from Turkey. They find that the health literacy of those examined does not differ substantially from the general German population. Lower levels of formal education, low social status, and older age are all associated with lower health literacy, equally for the general population and for the ‘migrants’.

They conclude that immigrants and their descendants should not all be called ‘vulnerable’, but look at the differences within the ‘migrant’ groups.

Interestingly, this report in Germany does not discuss the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic much. Still, the results resonate what we have found in our recent study on Covid-19 related health literacy in Switzerland, where we used equivalent questions on health literacy. We also found that health literacy for ‘immigrants’ in Switzerland is similar to the general population, and we also found important differences within the ‘immigrant’ population. However, we could also show that there is a subgroup of socio-economically vulnerable ‘migrants’ who have noticeably lower levels of health literacy. We also identified increased vulnerability around the stability of the residence status as a central element, a factor related to being an ‘immigrant’.

Here’s a video summarizing our study.

Berens, E.-M., Klinger, J., Mensing, M., Carol, S., Schaeffer, D. (2022): Health Literacy of
people with migration background in Germany. Results of the HLS-MIG. Short Summary.
Bielefeld: Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Literacy Research (ICHL). Bielefeld University.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2960263

Probst, Johanna, Didier Ruedin, Denise Efionayi-Mäder, Patrick Bodenmann, and Philippe Wanner. 2021. Littératie en santé dans le contexte de la pandémie de covid-19 : focus sur la population migrante. SFM Studies. 78. Neuchâtel: Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies.

getting your facts right — newspaper edition

The Swiss Press Council has upheld a complaint against the Swiss newspaper Basler Zeitung where they claimed that 70 per cent of the Covid-19 hospital beds were occupied by migrants. Fact is, in Switzerland no such data are collected in hospitals, and the newspaper relied on the estimation of a single nurse in a single hospital. The justification of the newspaper: other media picked up the story afterwards. The press council was not impressed.

Life after the Migration PhD

This promises to be an excellent event!

Exploring possible career paths outside of academia in professional fields of migration and beyond

What can your working life look like after graduating? With the support of IMES, the ACES Migration Network, and the AISSR, the organisers launch a new hybrid seminar series titled “Life after the Migration PhD”. The series targets PhD researchers who work on migration or related topics and connects them to post-PhD professionals who have moved onto careers outside of academia. The seminars offer insight into a range of non-university working areas and function as a networking environment. They kick off on the 26th of October with a seminar by Claudia Simons.

During three monthly sessions from October to December 2021, we learn more about different working trajectories by talking to professionals in three fields: (1) research institutes outside of university (think-tanks, foundations); (2) international advocacy (NGOs, IOs) and (3) diplomacy and government institutions. The seminars are interactive.

More information and registration: https://aissr.uva.nl/content/events/events/2021/10/life-after-the-migration-phd-1.html

The PRIO Guide to Migration Journals

This deserves more attention that ‘just’ a tweet! The PRIO guide to migration journals is now live: https://migration.prio.org/Journals/

It’s a guide of 29 migration journals you might want to consult once in a while if you consider publishing in migration journals.

What do you get?

The first thing you’ll notice is a list of (currently) 29 migration journals — with a relatively broad understanding of ‘migration’. As is probably necessarily the case, we can quibble about the inclusion of journals in such a list, but in my view the PRIO guide provides a pretty good overview of the publishing options. Having such a list in itself is greatly useful.

For a slightly different list of migration journals, you can consult the excellent list provided by our Documentation Centre: http://www.unine.ch/sfm/home/library/revues-liees-a-la-migration.html

It doesn’t stop here, though, far from it! For each of these 29 journals, you get a detailed portrait that should help you decide whether the journal is a suitable outlet for your research. The headings included are relevant for researchers, and I really like how they managed to provide information about the impact factor without listing it (or other similar measures). (unlike my blunt summary here).

Perhaps the most useful part (but also the most difficult one, thus possibly also the one where we might not always agree) is at the end, where they have picked typical articles. On the one hand, this saves you a trip to the journal website to check recent publications. On the other hand, it doesn’t entirely answer the question of what kind of research do they typically publish? I guess that’s the question we’re asking, but also one which is very difficult to answer when the common factor is the topic (migration) and not the methodology or something like that. In that sense, three articles can never do justice of the diversity of articles in IMR or JEMS, for example.

If open access is a concern for you, the end of the guide nicely summarizes the open access status. This doesn’t include (how could it possibly?) national agreements with publishers.

If Because impact is probably one of your concerns, there’s a nice summary at the end. I really like it how they avoided impact factors of Scimago rankings, yet still provide you with a general idea of ‘impact’ — and with that ‘prestige’.

What don’t you get?

You don’t get journals that publish a lot on migration but are not focused on migration, like some demography journals. The selection of journals is nicely documented, so no quibbles there! You also don’t get journals without peer review — but that’s definitely a good thing!

You don’t get impact factors (that’s probably a good thing), but you also don’t get information about the peer review — that’s a factor many early career researchers (have to) take into consideration. Luckily, we have SciRev for this. While journals have the relevant information about turn-around time or rejection rates, they tend not to publish them in a systematic way — it’s more like advertising: journals often highlight those aspects they do ‘well’. With SciRev, everyone can review the review process, and there are also short comments that can be quite insightful. There are other such guides, like some wiki pages, but SciRev is the only one I know with a systematic procedure, and speaking of migration journals, the only one that spans different disciplines!

One thing that a generic guide like the PRIO guide will struggle to do is capture the prestige of journals in different circles of researchers. This is linked to the question of what kind of research typically gets published in the journals, and can be quite different to impact factors or Scimago rankings… not that a Q4 journal in Scimago will be considered high prestige by some, though. I guess there’s still value in ‘asking around’ a bit.

If you need more information about ‘green’ open access, there’s still https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/