Since reproductive health is often considered a highly sensitive topic, underreporting in surveys and under coverage of register data occurs frequently. This may lead to inaccurate information about the reproductive health. This study compares the proportion of women having births and induced abortions among migrant women of Russian, Somali and Kurdish origin in Finland to women in the general Finnish population and examines the agreement between survey- and register-based data. The survey data from the Migrant Health and Wellbeing Study conducted in 2010–2012 and data from the Health 2011 Survey with corresponding information on women in the general population were used in this study. The respondents were women aged 18–64: 341 Russian, 176 Somali and 228 Kurdish origin women and 630 women in the general population. The survey data were linked to the Finnish Medical Birth Register and the Register of Induced Abortions. In the combined (survey and register) data, migrant groups aged 30–64 had a higher proportion (89–96%) compared to the general population (69%) of women with at least one birth. Under-coverage of registered births was observed in all study groups. Among women aged 18–64, 36% of the Russian group and 24% of the Kurdish group reported more births in the survey than in the register data. In the combined data, the proportions of Russian origin (69%) and Kurdish origin (38%) women who have had at least one induced abortion in their lifetime are higher than in the general population (21%). Under-reporting of induced abortions in survey was observed among Somali origin women aged 18–29 (1% vs. 18%). The level of agreement between survey and register data was the lowest for induced abortions among the Somali and Russian groups (− 0.01 and 0.27). Both survey- and register-based information are needed in studies on reproductive health, especially when comparing women with foreign origin with women in the general population. Culturally sensitive survey protocols need to be developed to reduce reporting bias.

In terms of the number of respondents, Survey on Well-Being among Foreign Born Population (FinMonik) is so far the most extensive survey carried out among the population with foreign background in Finland. It comprises a wide range of self-reported data, including information on the respondent’s health, well-being and access to care, which can be widely utilized in planning and assessing integration, health and welfare policies. A mixed-method approach (an electronic questionnaire, a paper questionnaire and phone interviews) was used in collecting the data which consists of responses by 6836 respondents aged 18–64 years. All response types included, the response rate was 53.1% (n = 6836). This study describes in detail the methods used in the FinMonik survey. In addition, we describe the demographics of the respondents partaking in each response format. The aim of the study is to promote the development of mixed-method survey as a way of collecting reliable data that can be used to enhance foreign-born people’s health, well-being and access to health care. The survey responses will be used as a baseline in observing the respondents’ well-being through the register-based data available in several national registers on health, medicine use and access to care as well as the data collected in the study Impact of Coronavirus Epidemic on Well-Being among Foreign Born Population Study (MigCOVID). Furthermore, the FinMonik study protocol will be repeated every four years.

Background: Health in Finland has developed positively in recent decades, but there are still large differences between population groups. Wide inequalities persist between socio-economic groups, for example by education, occupational status and income, in different domains of health such as self-reported health, morbidity, and mortality. Our aim in the sub-project of the Joint Action Health Equity Europe was to describe the status of national health inequality monitoring in Finland, and to present ideas for improving the situation, including the key indicators to be monitored. Methods: Several nationally representative registers and population surveys are the key sources of health information in Finland. We summarized information on the current state of socioeconomic health inequalities and their development over the past decades to identify research based health topics and indicators, selecting those where clear differences have been identified between education or income groups among the working-aged people. Results: We recommend 13 indicators to monitor and evaluate socio-economic health inequalities in the Finnish adult population. They cover five topics: health status, functioning, work ability, lifestyles and social factors. The recommended indicators are in line with the Nordic recommendation of inequality indicators and allow comparison between EU countries. This is the first step in developing a full monitoring system. The second step is needed to reach an agreement on the implementation. Conclusions: High-quality population survey and register data make it possible to monitor health inequalities in Finland. Register-based data need to be supplemented with population surveys, both health interview and health examination surveys, to provide necessary information on risk factors, functioning and perceived health. Key messages: The key characteristics of successful systematic monitoring of health inequalities are regularity, up-to-date information, validity of selected indicators and coverage of the most important phenomena. Monitoring enables identification of health needs which must be recognized in policy-making, targeting of services, regional benchmarking and support for health impact assessment in policy-making.