With one billion people on the move or having moved in 2018, migration is a global reality, which has also become a political lightning rod. Although estimates indicate that the majority of global migration occurs within low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), the most prominent dialogue focuses almost exclusively on migration from LMICs to high-income countries (HICs). Nowadays, populist discourse demonises the very same individuals who uphold economies, bolster social services, and contribute to health services in both origin and destination locations. Those in positions of political and economic power continue to restrict or publicly condemn migration to promote their own interests. Meanwhile nationalist movements assert so-called cultural sovereignty by delineating an us versus them rhetoric, creating a moral emergency. In response to these issues, the UCL-Lancet Commission on Migration and Health was convened to articulate evidence-based approaches to inform public discourse and policy. The Commission undertook analyses and consulted widely, with diverse international evidence and expertise spanning sociology, politics, public health science, law, humanitarianism, and anthropology. The result of this work is a report that aims to be a call to action for civil society, health leaders, academics, and policy makers to maximise the benefits and reduce the costs of migration on health locally and globally. The outputs of our work relate to five overarching goals that we thread throughout the report. First, we provide the latest evidence on migration and health outcomes. This evidence challenges common myths and highlights the diversity, dynamics, and benefits of modern migration and how it relates to population and individual health. Migrants generally contribute more to the wealth of host societies than they cost. Our Article shows that international migrants in HICs have, on average, lower mortality than the host country population. However, increased morbidity was found for some conditions and among certain subgroups of migrants, (eg, increased rates of mental illness in victims of trafficking and people fleeing conflict) and in populations left behind in the location of origin. Currently, in 2018, the full range of migrants’ health needs are difficult to assess because of poor quality data. We know very little, for example, about the health of undocumented migrants, people with disabilities, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, or intersex (LGBTI) individuals who migrate or who are unable to move. Second, we examine multisector determinants of health and consider the implication of the current sector-siloed approaches. The health of people who migrate depends greatly on structural and political factors that determine the impetus for migration, the conditions of their journey, and their destination. Discrimination, gender inequalities, and exclusion from health and social services repeatedly emerge as negative health influences for migrants that require cross-sector responses. Third, we critically review key challenges to healthy migration. Population mobility provides economic, social, and cultural dividends for those who migrate and their host communities. Furthermore, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regardless of location or migration status, is enshrined in numerous human rights instruments. However, national sovereignty concerns overshadow these benefits and legal norms. Attention to migration focuses largely on security concerns. When there is conjoining of the words health and migration, it is either focused on small subsets of society and policy, or negatively construed. International agreements, such as the UN Global Compact for Migration and the UN Global Compact on Refugees, represent an opportunity to ensure that international solidarity, unity of intent, and our shared humanity triumphs over nationalist and exclusionary policies, leading to concrete actions to protect the health of migrants. Fourth, we examine equity in access to health and health services and offer evidence-based solutions to improve the health of migrants. Migrants should be explicitly included in universal health coverage commitments. Ultimately, the cost of failing to be health-inclusive could be more expensive to national economies, health security, and global health than the modest investments required. Finally, we look ahead to outline how our evidence can contribute to synergistic and equitable health, social, and economic policies, and feasible strategies to inform and inspire action by migrants, policy makers, and civil society. We conclude that migration should be treated as a central feature of 21st century health and development. Commitments to the health of migrating populations should be considered across all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in the implementation of the Global Compact for Migration and Global Compact on Refugees. This Commission offers recommendations that view population mobility as an asset to global health by showing the meaning and reality of good health for all. We present four key messages that provide a focus for future action.

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are accepted as the gold-standard approaches to measure effects of intervention or treatment on outcomes. They are also the designs of choice for health technology assessment (HTA). Randomization ensures comparability, in both measured and unmeasured pretreatment characteristics, of individuals assigned to treatment and control or comparator. However, even adequately powered RCTs are not always feasible for several reasons such as cost, time, practical and ethical constraints, and limited generalizability. RCTs rely on data collected on selected, homogeneous population under highly controlled conditions; hence, they provide evidence on efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Alternatively, observational studies can provide evidence on the relative effectiveness or safety of a health technology compared to one or more alternatives when provided under the setting of routine health care practice. In observational studies, however, treatment assignment is a non-random process based on an individual’s baseline characteristics; hence, treatment groups may not be comparable in their pretreatment characteristics. As a result, direct comparison of outcomes between treatment groups might lead to biased estimate of the treatment effect. Propensity score approaches have been used to achieve balance or comparability of treatment groups in terms of their measured pretreatment covariates thereby controlling for confounding bias in estimating treatment effects. Despite the popularity of propensity scores methods and recent important methodological advances, misunderstandings on their applications and limitations are all too common. In this article, we present a review of the propensity scores methods, extended applications, recent advances, and their strengths and limitations.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is the systematic evaluation of the properties and impacts of health technologies and interventions. In this article, we presented a discussion of HTA and its evolution in Brazil, as well as a description of secondary data sources available in Brazil with potential applications to generate evidence for HTA and policy decisions. Furthermore, we highlighted record linkage, ongoing record linkage initiatives in Brazil, and the main linkage tools developed and/or used in Brazilian data. Finally, we discussed the challenges and opportunities of using secondary data for research in the Brazilian context. In conclusion, we emphasized the availability of high quality data and an open, modern attitude toward the use of data for research and policy. This is supported by a rigorous but enabling legal framework that will allow the conduct of large-scale observational studies to evaluate clinical, economical, and social impacts of health technologies and social policies.

Resumo O racismo é um sistema estruturante, gerador de comportamentos, práticas, crenças e preconceitos que fundamentam desigualdades evitáveis e injustas, baseadas na raça ou etnia. Na saúde o racismo pode se manifestar de diversas formas, como o institucional, que frequentemente ocorre de forma implícita. A pandemia do coronavírus tem sido um desafio para países que apresentam profundas desigualdades. No Brasil, em que pese a ausência das informações desagregadas por raça ou etnia ou que quando coletadas apresentam um preenchimento precário, sabe-se que negras e negros irão sofrer mais severamente os impactos da pandemia e seus vários desfechos negativos. No texto recuperamos aspectos históricos e sua relação com as condições de vulnerabilidade da população negra e apresentamos uma agenda de ações específicas para o combate ao racismo e suas devastadoras consequências no contexto da Covid-19.

Background: Brazil has made great progress in reducing child mortality over the past decades, and a parcel of this achievement has been credited to the Bolsa Família program (BFP). We examined the association between being a BFP beneficiary and child mortality (1–4 years of age), also examining how this association differs by maternal race/skin color, gestational age at birth (term versus preterm), municipality income level, and index of quality of BFP management. Methods and findings: This is a cross-sectional analysis nested within the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort, a population-based cohort primarily built from Brazil’s Unified Registry for Social Programs (Cadastro Único). We analyzed data from 6,309,366 children under 5 years of age whose families enrolled between 2006 and 2015. Through deterministic linkage with the BFP payroll datasets, and similarity linkage with the Brazilian Mortality Information System, 4,858,253 children were identified as beneficiaries (77%) and 1,451,113 (23%) were not. Our analysis consisted of a combination of kernel matching and weighted logistic regressions. After kernel matching, 5,308,989 (84.1%) children were included in the final weighted logistic analysis, with 4,107,920 (77.4%) of those being beneficiaries and 1,201,069 (22.6%) not, with a total of 14,897 linked deaths. Overall, BFP participation was associated with a reduction in child mortality (weighted odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.88; p < 0.001). This association was stronger for preterm children (weighted OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.90; p < 0.001), children of Black mothers (weighted OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97; p < 0.001), children living in municipalities in the lowest income quintile (first quintile of municipal income: weighted OR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.82; p < 0.001), and municipalities with better index of BFP management (5th quintile of the Decentralized Management Index: weighted OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.88; p < 0.001). The main limitation of our methodology is that our propensity score approach does not account for possible unmeasured confounders. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis showed that loss of nameless death records before linkage may have resulted in overestimation of the associations between BFP participation and mortality, with loss of statistical significance in municipalities with greater losses of data and change in the direction of the association in municipalities with no losses. Conclusions: In this study, we observed a significant association between BFP participation and child mortality in children aged 1–4 years and found that this association was stronger for children living in municipalities in the lowest quintile of wealth, in municipalities with better index of program management, and also in preterm children and children of Black mothers. These findings reinforce the evidence that programs like BFP, already proven effective in poverty reduction, have a great potential to improve child health and survival. Subgroup analysis revealed heterogeneous results, useful for policy improvement and better targeting of BFP.