Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Nov 24;20(11):e0314333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314333

Prevalence and risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders among migrant and refugee preschool children in high-income western countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Kh Shafiur Rahaman 1,2,3,*, Valsamma Eapen 4,5,6, Mythily Subramanium 7,8,9, James Rufus John 4,5,6, Kanchana Ekanayake 10, Amit Arora 1,2,11,12,13,14
Editor: Selcuk Guven15
PMCID: PMC12643264  PMID: 41284696

Abstract

Neurodevelopment is a complicated mechanism involving genetic, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural processes. Factors related to parental migration directly or indirectly affect their children’s neurodevelopmental process and may lead to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Other factors, such as barriers to accessing health services, social discrimination, mothers’ psychosocial health during pregnancy may disrupt the neurodevelopmental process and lead to disorders and disabilities among children of migrants. However, there is a gap in data on the prevalence and the risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders among migrant children, which have been inadequately listed. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review to study and synthesise published evidence to ascertain the global prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders and risk factors leading to those groups of neurodevelopmental disorders among children of migrants in high-income Western countries. The protocol for this systematic review was developed with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. Observational studies that report on the prevalence and risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders among migrant young children under 5 years of age in high-income Western countries will be included in this study. Five electronic databases will be searched comprehensively (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus). Two reviewers will independently screen, select studies, assess the methodological quality, and extract all relevant data subsequently. The systematic review and meta-analysis will help design tailored interventions for migrant and refugee preschool children with neurodevelopmental disorders and identify gaps from previous research to guide future research. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024589357).

1. Introduction

Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) involve a group of conditions that start in the development phase of a child and disrupt the individual, socioeconomic, academic, and occupational functioning [1]. Neurodevelopmental Disorders broadly include intellectual disorders, autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), language and learning disorders, motor disorders, etc. [1]. Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to the development of these disorders [2], leading to impairments in motor, cognitive, language, and behaviour [3]. Globally, 316.8 million cases of developmental conditions have been reported, with males being affected more than females [3]. The prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders among children aged between 0–18 years differs across different population groups. A recent systematic review reported a significant variation in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders (4.7% to 88.5%) [4]. The prevalence of Neurodevelopmental disorders in high-income countries was estimated between 7.0% to 15.0% of children in the general population [5,6]. In contrast, the prevalence in low-middle countries has been reported to be 7.6% [7], and children from low-economic settings are asymmetrically affected by neurodevelopmental disorders [8].

Various risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders have been reported in the literature, which include genetic, environmental, prenatal, and postnatal issues, nutritional disorders, exposure to crisis, trauma, and poverty [8]. Furthermore, some children are more likely than others to develop developmental disabilities because of multiple unfavourable circumstances at different levels, which include but are not limited to the family’s socioeconomic standing, their nationality, and their racial and ethnic heritage [3]. A recent review reported that children from migrant and refugee families coming from low and middle-income countries have a higher risk of neurodevelopmental disorders [9]. Children with one or both migrant parent(s) were found to have an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders related to language, academic skills, or coordination [10,11].

The risk factors related to neurodevelopmental delays in children may vary based on parents’ ethnic background and circumstances during the migration [12,13]. Other difficulties related to stigma [14], inadequate knowledge, differences in perception [15], referral patterns [16], and delayed diagnosis [17] also contribute to the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children with parental history of migration and ethnic minority. Migrants often exhibit risk factors such as inappropriate residence, inadequate nutrition (e.g., obesity) [18,19], and low socioeconomic status [20], which differ from those of the host population. Maternal mental health is another risk factor for neurodevelopmental disorders. Some migrant mothers also would have experienced war and political conflict or extreme economic crises in their home country. Some mothers may have been exposed to poverty and sexual violence, which caused high mental stress during their pregnancy [14]. Health literacy among migrant families varies, as do the developmental outcomes of children. Additionally, cultural sensitivity and the capacity of health services in the host country to identify and treat developmental disabilities and impairments can differ significantly.

Available data on the prevalence and incidence rates of neurodevelopmental disorders are necessary to plan for the sustainable delivery of health, social, and education services. However, data is often available only for the mainstream population, with only a few studies reporting on children with migrant and refugee backgrounds [12, 2124]. The main objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and/or meta-analysis of the literature to investigate the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders and their risk factors in preschool children (0–6 years) with a parental history of migration in high-income Western countries.

2. Methods

2.1. Protocol and registration

The systematic review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness [25] and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [26]. The protocol for this review was reported as per the PRISMA for Systematic Review Protocols (PRISMA-P) framework. Additionally, the review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024589357).

2.2. Review question

The primary review questions were designed based on the concept, context, and population (CoCoPop) framework as recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [27]. The framework will suggest the search strategy and enable us to establish the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1).

Table 1. Framework for inclusion criteria.

Parameter Criteria
Co Concept a. Prevalence of neurodevelopmental Disorders as per the DSM-5

b. Risk factors/ predictors of neurodevelopmental disorders
Co Context/ setting High-income western countries, as defined by the World Bank [28]
Pop Population Preschool children of migrants and refugees (as defined by the IOM [29], aged 0–6 years [mean/ median age of 6 years], with at least one parent born overseas (first or second generation of immigrants).

Among preschool children of migrant and refugee populations in high-income Western countries, what is the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders, and what are the risk factors affecting the disorders in question?

2.3. Inclusion criteria

“Migrants and refugees” refer to groups of people moving for numerous reasons, often with overlapping motivations, as part of mixed movements – as defined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) [30]. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), a “migrant” is anyone who crosses an international border, leaving their birthplace or usual place of residence, for instance, unauthorised entrants, asylum seekers, and irregular or undocumented migrants. This applies regardless of their legal status and includes authorised migrants who left for work, family, and study [29]. Additionally, “refugee” encompasses individuals who have been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and those fleeing persecution or organised violence – as defined by IOM [29]. In this study, children of migrants and refugee populations residing in high-income Western countries will be included, as classified by the World Bank (countries with a Gross National Income per capita of USD 13,205 or more) [28]. In this review, ‘high-income Western countries’ refers to nations in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania that are classified as high-income by the World Bank [28] and represent major destinations for migrant and refugee resettlement through different migration pathways, such as skilled, family, and specific eligibility categories, along with refugee and humanitarian initiatives [31,32]. Individuals migrating from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to Western nations often originate from collectivist societies that are transitioning towards individualist societies.

For our review, studies that included children aged between 0 and 6 years will be considered, or the studies that reported a mean/ median age of 6 years will be included, with at least one parent born overseas (first or second generation of immigrants). Observational studies, such as cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), and ecological studies, that report the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders and risk factors among children of migrants, will also be included. Other studies, such as randomised controlled trials, case reports, opinions, letters to editors, and unpublished materials, will be excluded. No restrictions will be applied to the publication date and the language of the published literature.

2.4. Search strategy

The search strategy will be developed with opinions from two expert health sciences librarians. A mix of specific medical subject headings (MeSH), free-text terms, and Boolean operators will be included. The search terms will focus on prevalence, risk factors, migrants, refugees, preschool children, and relevant high-income Western countries. First, these terms will be tested in the Medline (OVID) database. The reviewers (K.S.R and A.A.) with experience in database searches will conduct an initial pilot search on two databases. The reviewers will then carry out all remaining literature searches independently. The preliminary Medline (OVID) search strategy formulated with guidance from expert librarians in the field is outlined in Table 2. After completing the Medline (OVID) database search, we will use the same syntax and subject headings for the remaining databases, adapting them as necessary. We will manually review the reference lists of the qualifying studies and existing literature reviews, including background and forward citation tracking of the studies included.

Table 2. Primary search strategy for Medline (OVID) (4th October 2025).

# Query Results
1 Prevalence/ 379136
2 Risk Factors/ 1052605
3 (Prevalence* or risk factor*).mp. 23479980
4 1 or 2 or 3 2347998
5 exp Neurodevelopmental Disorders/ 227526
6 exp Communication Disorders/ 72396
7 exp Autism Spectrum Disorder/ 49825
8 exp “Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders”/ 42946
9 exp Specific Learning Disorder/ 10679
10 exp Motor Disorders/ 1165
11 exp Tic Disorders/ 6332
12 (Intellectual* Disabilit* or Global Developmental Delay* or Communication Disorder* or Language Disorder* or Speech Sound Disorder* or Phonological Disorder* or Childhood-Onset Fluency Disorder* or Stuttering* or Communication Disorder* or Autism* or autistic* or Attention-Deficit* or Hyperactivity Disorder* or Learning Disorder* or Motor Disorder* or Developmental Coordination Disorder* or Stereotypic Movement Disorder* or Tic Disorder* or Tourette* Disorder* or Motor disorder* or Tic Disorder* or Neurodevelopmental Disorder* or mp. 250838
13 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 339043
14 exp “Transients and Migrants”/ 15835
15 (migrant* or immigrant* or emigrant* or migration*).mp. 455343
16 “Culturally and linguistically”.mp. 2324
17 Cultural diversity/ 14119
18 (cultural* divers* or ethnic*).mp. 269245
19 Ethnicity/ 78681
20 ethnic*.mp. or “Ethnic and Racial Minorities”/ 255463
21 Refugee*.mp. or Refugees/ 21771
22 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 726013
23 child/ or child, preschool/ or infant/ 2574262
24 (infant* or newborn* or child*).mp. 3763723
25 23 or 24 3763723
26 (high* income* western* adj5 (countr* or nation* or economy)).mp. 101
27 (western adj (countr* or econom* or nation*)).mp. 22245
28 (America* or Andorra* or Australia* or Austria* or Belgium or Belgian* or Britain or British or Canada or Canadian* or Croatia* or Cyprus or Cyprian* or Cypriot? or Denmark or Danish or England or English or Estonia* or Finland or Finnish or Finn? or France or French or German* or Greece or Greek* or Hungary or Hungarian*or Iceland* or Ireland or Irish or Italy or Italian* or Latvia* or Liechtenstein*or Lithuania* or Luxembourg* or Malta or Maltese or Monaco or Netherlands or Dutch or New Zealand* or Norway or Norwegian*or Poland or Polish or Portug* or San Marino or Slovak* or Slovenia* or Scotland or Scottish or Spain or Spanish or Sweden or Swedish or Switzerland or Swiss or United Kingdom or UK or Great Britain or United States or USA or Wales or Welsh).tw,kw. 2969759
29 (Americas or Andorra or Australia or Austria or Belgium or Canada or Croatia or Cyprus or Denmark or England or Estonia or Finland or France or Germany or Greece or ancient Greece or Hungary or Austria-Hungary or Iceland or Ireland or northern Ireland or Italy or Latvia or Liechtenstein or Lithuania or Luxembourg or Malta or Monaco or Netherlands or New Zealand or Norway or Poland or Portugal or San Marino or Slovakia or Czechoslovakia or Czech republic or Scotland or Spain or Sweden or Switzerland or United Kingdom or United States or Wales).sh. 2624787
30 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 4446097
31 4 and 13 and 22 and 25 and 30 543

2.5. Information sources

The following five electronic databases will be searched without any restrictions on publication date (i.e., from the time of database inception to the present) and language: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO).

2.6. Study selection

The studies identified through electronic databases and citations will be imported into EndNote 21 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA). All the duplicates will be removed. Following a pilot test, two independent reviewers (K.S.R. and A.A.) will review the titles and abstracts, strictly adhering to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text will be retrieved for clarification if necessary. Then, the articles that meet the inclusion criteria will be retrieved in full, and their details will be imported into the JBI System for Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI) [33]. The same two reviewers will then independently evaluate the full texts to confirm eligibility. When we need additional information, the study authors will be contacted. Any disagreements with the reviewer will be addressed through discussion involving a third reviewer (J.J.) if necessary. The reasons for excluding full-text studies will be recorded and reported in the systematic review, no formal hierarchy will be applied. If we find multiple articles published from the same study, they will be linked. The study selection process will be presented as a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagrams [34].

2.7. Assessment of methodological quality

Each study included in this review will be assessed distinctly by two reviewers (K.S.R and A.A.) for methodological quality. A standardised critical appraisal tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies [35], selected according to study design. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies reporting Prevalence Data will be used for studies reporting prevalence estimates of neurodevelopmental disorders [36]. Additionally, the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for cross-sectional studies, cohort studies and case-control studies will be used for assessing the risk or protective factors of neurodevelopmental disorders [37]. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion between the two reviewers, and a third reviewer (J.J.) will be included when necessary. The authors of the study will be contacted to request missing or additional information where necessary to ensure the methodological quality. The studies will be assessed based on the available information if there is no response from the authors following two attempts. The risk of bias will be presented for each study through tables and figures and described narratively in the final review publication. The methodological concerns and their impact on the interpretation of results will be addressed in this narrative. All articles considered in this review will be subject to data extraction and synthesis, regardless of their methodological quality outcomes. Where possible, each study will be included for data extraction and synthesis irrespective of its methodological quality.

2.8. Data extraction

A standard data extraction tool (see Table 1 in the Appendix) has been developed, which will be piloted in one study. The tool will be refined to ensure that all relevant data is captured. A calibration exercise will be conducted to ensure consistency among the two reviewers. Two authors (K.S.R and A.A.) will independently extract the data. Any differences among reviewers will be settled through consensus, and if an agreement cannot be achieved, a third reviewer will make the final decision. The extracted data will be recorded in an Excel spreadsheet with article details, participant characteristics, prevalence and risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders, type of migrant or refugee, study context, etc. Any additional information relevant to our study will be recorded, and the data extraction form will be modified accordingly. The authors of the study will be contacted when we require any additional information. If there is no response from the authors following two attempts, we will continue with the available information. The extracted data will be presented in narrative form and tables.

2.9. Data synthesis

Quantitative data synthesis methods will be employed to comprehensively address the research findings. The results will be categorised into settings, considering the origin of the participants and other environmental features. A meta-analysis will be performed only when there are at least two eligible studies available, and the studies included are relatively consistent regarding the population, outcomes, and methods used. For meta-analysis of prevalence estimates, we will use a random-effects model with the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilize variances and reduce bias when proportions are close to 0 or 1 [38]. This transformation enables the inclusion of studies reporting zero events without the need for continuity corrections. Pooled prevalence will be presented with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q test and explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression where sufficient studies are available. For meta-analysis of risk factors, the preferred effect measure will be adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals. Where studies report risk ratios (RRs) or hazard ratios (HRs), we will pool effect sizes within the same metric and study design to avoid inappropriate mixing. If conversion between effect measures is required, we will apply standard statistical methods (e.g., log transformation and variance approximation) and document these procedures in detail. Random-effects models will be used for pooling, and heterogeneity will be assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q test. Otherwise, we will report the findings narratively. We will conduct a subgroup analysis to explore sources of heterogeneity where sufficient data are available. A priori subgroups would include duration of resettlement (recently settled, < 5 years vs long-term, ≥ 5 years), geographical origin of the migrants & refugees (e.g., Middle East, South Asia, Africa, other), region of the host country (e.g., North America, Europe, Oceania etc.) to address contextual variability, age group (infants, < 2 years vs preschool, 2–6 years), and type of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, learning disorders, ADHD and others.

Subgroup analyses will only be conducted when there are ≥ 5 studies per subgroup, and meta-regression will require ≥10 studies to ensure adequate power and reliability. These subgroups could be more vulnerable to health conditions due to specific socioeconomic conditions, access to healthcare, and health inequalities. To evaluate publication bias, funnel plots will be utilized for meta-analyses that include 10 or more studies. Egger’s regression test will be conducted only when there are at least 10 studies, in line with recommendations to prevent false positives with smaller sample sizes [39]. Studies identified with a high risk of bias will still be included in the review, but with careful interpretation. These studies will not be part of the primary meta-analyses and will instead be evaluated in sensitivity analyses to determine their influence on the pooled estimates. Should the inclusion of these studies significantly change the summary estimates or the level of heterogeneity, the findings will be presented separately and discussed in context. A narrative synthesis of the study findings will be used in tables and figures where statistical pooling is challenging due to heterogeneity among the studies. Stata 18 will be used for any statistical analysis to ensure rigorous data evaluation, leading to more valid and reliable conclusions.

3. Conclusions

The systematic review aims to provide overarching details on the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders and risk factors among preschool children of migrants (aged 0–6 years) in a global context. Understanding the risk factors is crucial to knowing what contributes to this population’s higher prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. The findings can help to design targeted interventions, develop culturally appropriate programs, and attenuate these risks. Policymakers and health officials can use the review findings to address the unique challenges faced by children and their migrant parents within the health system. Our research also prioritises the necessity of including a diverse group in health research. The migrant population has its unique cultural practices, norms, and traditions. In this review, we aim to address the insufficiently represented group and contribute to equitable health research practices.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supporting information.

(DOCX)

pone.0314333.s001.docx (15.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

This study acknowledges the support from the School of Health Sciences (SoHS) and Graduate Research School (GRS), Western Sydney University.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The research was funded by the “Western Sydney University International Master of Research (MRes) Scholarship”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Association AP. Neurodevelopmental disorders: DSM-5 selections. American Psychiatric Publishing. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Boivin MJ, Kakooza AM, Warf BC, Davidson LL, Grigorenko EL. Reducing neurodevelopmental disorders and disability through research and interventions. Nature. 2015;527(7578):S155-60. doi: 10.1038/nature16029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Organization WH. Global report on children with developmental disabilities: from the margins to the mainstream. World Health Organization. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Francés L, Quintero J, Fernández A, Ruiz A, Caules J, Fillon G, et al. Current state of knowledge on the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood according to the DSM-5: a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2022;16(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13034-022-00462-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Halfon N, Houtrow A, Larson K, Newacheck PW. The changing landscape of disability in childhood. Future Child. 2012;22(1):13–42. doi: 10.1353/foc.2012.0004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA, Cohen RA, Blumberg SJ, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997–2008. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):1034–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bitta M, Kariuki SM, Abubakar A, Newton CRJC. Burden of neurodevelopmental disorders in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Wellcome Open Res. 2017;2:121. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13540.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Durkin MS, Schneider H, Pathania VS, Nelson KB, Solarsh GC, Bellows N. Learning and developmental disabilities. 2011.
  • 9.Abdullahi I, Wong K, Mutch R, Glasson EJ, de Klerk N, Cherian S, et al. Risk of Developmental Disorders in Children of Immigrant Mothers: A Population-Based Data Linkage Evaluation. J Pediatr. 2019;204:275-284.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.08.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Loi S, Pitkänen J, Moustgaard H, Myrskylä M, Martikainen P. Health of Immigrant Children: The Role of Immigrant Generation, Exogamous Family Setting, and Family Material and Social Resources. Demography. 2021;58(5):1655–85. doi: 10.1215/00703370-9411326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lehti V, Gyllenberg D, Suominen A, Sourander A. Finnish-born children of immigrants are more likely to be diagnosed with developmental disorders related to speech and language, academic skills and coordination. Acta Paediatr. 2018;107(8):1409–17. doi: 10.1111/apa.14308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Leonard H, Glasson E, Nassar N, Whitehouse A, Bebbington A, Bourke J, et al. Autism and intellectual disability are differentially related to sociodemographic background at birth. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e17875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gerritsen AAM, Bramsen I, Devillé W, van Willigen LHM, Hovens JE, van der Ploeg HM. Physical and mental health of Afghan, Iranian and Somali asylum seekers and refugees living in the Netherlands. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41(1):18–26. doi: 10.1007/s00127-005-0003-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ikram UZ, Snijder MB, Fassaert TJL, Schene AH, Kunst AE, Stronks K. The contribution of perceived ethnic discrimination to the prevalence of depression. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(2):243–8. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ellen Selman L, Fox F, Aabe N, Turner K, Rai D, Redwood S. “You are labelled by your children’s disability” - A community-based, participatory study of stigma among Somali parents of children with autism living in the United Kingdom. Ethn Health. 2018;23(7):781–96. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2017.1294663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fox F, Aabe N, Turner K, Redwood S, Rai D. “It was like walking without knowing where I was going”: A Qualitative Study of Autism in a UK Somali Migrant Community. J Autism Dev Disord. 2017;47(2):305–15. doi: 10.1007/s10803-016-2952-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Begeer S, Bouk SE, Boussaid W, Terwogt MM, Koot HM. Underdiagnosis and referral bias of autism in ethnic minorities. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009;39(1):142–8. doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0611-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Magaña S, Lopez K, Aguinaga A, Morton H. Access to diagnosis and treatment services among latino children with autism spectrum disorders. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2013;51(3):141–53. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.3.141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Delobel-Ayoub M, Ehlinger V, Klapouszczak D, Maffre T, Raynaud J-P, Delpierre C, et al. Socioeconomic Disparities and Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Intellectual Disability. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141964. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Miller LL, Gustafsson HC, Tipsord J, Song M, Nousen E, Dieckmann N, et al. Is the Association of ADHD with Socio-Economic Disadvantage Explained by Child Comorbid Externalizing Problems or Parent ADHD?. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2018;46(5):951–63. doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0356-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Daseking M, Bauer A, Knievel J, Petermann F, Waldmann H-C. Cognitive development and risk factors in bilingual pre-school children from an immigrant background. Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr. 2011;60(5):351–68. doi: 10.13109/prkk.2011.60.5.351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Graham HR, Minhas RS, Paxton G. Learning Problems in Children of Refugee Background: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics. 2016;137(6):e20153994. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Crafa D, Warfa N. Maternal migration and autism risk: systematic analysis. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(1):64–71. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2014.995601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fairthorne J, de Klerk N, Leonard HM, Schieve LA, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Maternal Race-Ethnicity, Immigrant Status, Country of Birth, and the Odds of a Child With Autism. Child Neurol Open. 2017;4:2329048X16688125. doi: 10.1177/2329048X16688125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Systematic reviews of effectiveness. 3 ed. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520–32. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Group WB. Global economic prospects, January 2022. World Bank Publications. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Glossary on Migration. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Assembly UG. New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants: Resolution/Adopted by the General Assembly. 2016.
  • 31.Hollifield J, Martin P, Orrenius P. Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Third ed. Stanford University Press. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Massey DS, Malone N. Pathways to legal immigration. Popul Res Policy Rev. 2002;21(6):473–504. doi: 10.1023/A:1022914700681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, et al. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019;17(1):36–43. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aromataris ELC, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2024.
  • 36.Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):147–53. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Moola S, Munn Z, Sears K, Sfetcu R, Currie M, Lisy K, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute’s approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):163–9. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):105–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(3):123–8. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Massimiliano Esposito

13 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-50733

Prevalence and risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders among migrant and refugee preschool children in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kh Shafiur Rahaman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

Specifically:

==============================

The study addresses a very interesting topic and the systematic review has also been accepted on PROSPERO. However, the results, the forest plot of the meta-analysis, the discussion are missing.

==============================

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Kind regards,

Massimiliano Esposito, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. 2025 Nov 24;20(11):e0314333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314333.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Dec 2024

I have updated the cover letter and wish to consider this manuscript a Study Protocol. I am also confirming that the literature searches have not been completed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 2.docx

pone.0314333.s004.docx (14KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Selcuk Guven

12 Sep 2025

Please find below my overall assessment and detailed comments on the current version.

The protocol addresses an important evidence gap and has strong potential to inform policy and service planning for migrant and refugee children. The manuscript is clearly written and this revision clearly improved the manuscript, but several key issues remain unresolved. Some of these were highlighted by the first reviewer and still appear unaddressed, while others are additional concerns identified during my own review. Collectively, these points require clarification and revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Comments:

  • Age range is inconsistently described as “under 5,” “<6,” and “preschool.” Please standardize across the title, abstract, methods, and eligibility table.

  • The phrase “high-income western countries” is ambiguous. If all high-income countries (per World Bank) are eligible, state this clearly. If only a subset of “western” countries are intended, define them explicitly and ensure the search strategy matches.

  • Clarify whether you will include first-generation children only (born abroad) or also second-generation children (born locally to migrant/refugee parents).

  • Different sections provide contradictory statements: “English only” vs “no restrictions.” Please decide on one policy. If restricted to English, provide a rationale and acknowledge risk of language bias.

  • The Medline strategy includes many non-NDD conditions (e.g., schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, substance use, sleep disorders). This will generate excessive irrelevant records and reduce precision. Please restrict to DSM-5 neurodevelopmental disorders: autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, communication disorders, specific learning disorder, motor disorders, tic disorders, intellectual disability.

  • The country filter includes outdated or irrelevant terms (e.g., “Czechoslovakia,” “ancient Greece,” “Austria-Hungary”). Please update to a current and justified list, or omit country filters and apply eligibility during screening.

  • Database listing is inconsistent (sometimes four, sometimes five). Correct to a consistent list (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus).

  • Please specify the exact JBI tools by study type (e.g., JBI Prevalence checklist for prevalence, JBI cohort/case-control/cross-sectional checklists for risk factors). Current phrasing “relevant JBI tool” is too vague.

  • Clarify how studies at high/critical risk of bias will be handled in synthesis (e.g., excluded from quantitative pooling, included in sensitivity analysis only).

  • Prevalence pooling: Specify the statistical transformation (e.g., logit, Freeman–Tukey, binomial GLMM) and how zero-event studies will be handled.

  • Risk factor pooling: State the preferred effect measure (e.g., adjusted odds ratios) and how you will handle mixing ORs, RRs, and HRs.

  • Subgroups and meta-regressions: Define a priori variables more clearly (e.g., “recently resettled <5 years” vs “long-term”), and state minimum study counts required to conduct analyses.

  • Publication bias: Egger’s test should only be used with ≥10 studies; please clarify this.

  • The manuscript states support from a “Western Sydney University International MRes Scholarship,” while the submission form says “no funding.” Please align these.

  • Data availability should not be “Not applicable.” A protocol-appropriate statement would be: “No datasets were generated or analyzed. Data extraction forms and analytic code will be shared upon completion of the review.”

Other issues:

  1. Methods: replace “Total text will be retrieved” with “Full text will be retrieved.”

  2. Data extraction table: “Reviewer comments” column is unnecessary for publication; simplify to standard fields.

  3. Clarify in Methods that two reviewers will independently extract data and resolve discrepancies by consensus.

  4. References: check for duplicates and fix DOI formatting errors.

  5. Standardize terminology: use either “neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)” or “neurodevelopment disorders” consistently.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Selcuk Guven, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"Western Sydney University International Master of Research (MRes) Scholarship."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer #1:

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #1: Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. This article is well written and the protocol is robust and thorough due to the guidance of the JBI, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA guidelines. The analytical plan is also very robust with important subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and the assessment of publication bias. I have made some comments below for the authors to consider and to hopefully strengthen the manuscript.

Comments/suggestions:

• General:

o No need to capitalise “neurodevelopment/al” in the middle of sentences

o It should be “neurodevelopmental disorder”, not “neurodevelopment disorder”

o There are inconsistencies in how the target population is mentioned (e.g., “<6 years”, “children between 0 and 5 years”, “children under 5 years of age” and “0 to 6 years”). For consistency, clarity, and ease of reading, perhaps stick to one.

• Abstract:

o Line 52: The second last sentence seems to be incomplete (i.e., “migrant children with and”)

• Introduction:

o Lines 69-71: The third sentence seems to be incomplete (i.e., “Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to the development of these disorders [2], leading to impairments in motor, cognitive, language, and behavioural [3]”)

o Lines 100-116: Remove specific research questions or consolidate with Methods section

• Methods:

o Table 1. Framework for inclusion criteria:

� I understand that high-income countries were defined as per the World Bank. How have you selected the “Western countries” as this is slightly ambiguous? Were they selected based on geography (i.e., continent, region) and/or cultural, political, or economic characteristics? Do you have a reference?

o 2.3 Inclusion Criteria:

� Lines 143-151: Perhaps for succinctness in this section, the description of migrants and refugees should be moved to the Introduction section.

� Lines 155-157: What about other study designs such as case-control, time-series, or ecological studies?

o 2.5 Information Sources:

� Line 184: I believe PsycINFO is also a part of the Ovid platform

o 2.6 Study Selection:

� Lines 196-197: Is there any hierarchy for reasons for exclusion for the full-text screening stage?

o 2.7 Assessment of Methodological Quality:

� Line 204: It should be “risk of bias”, “calibre” is not a suitable term as it is not informative and non-specific

o 2.9 Data Synthesis:

� Before mentioning the weighted inverse variance random-effects model, I would mention that you will perform the meta-analysis if the number of eligible studies and homogeneity permits it.

� How will heterogeneity be tested?

• Appendix:

o Table 1: Data extraction template.

� Maybe be worth including the study period in this table.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the authors.pdf

pone.0314333.s003.pdf (110.3KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Nov 24;20(11):e0314333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314333.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Oct 2025

Response to Editor’s Comments

The protocol addresses an important evidence gap and has strong potential to inform policy and service planning for migrant and refugee children. The manuscript is clearly written and this revision clearly improved the manuscript, but several key issues remain unresolved. Some of these were highlighted by the first reviewer and still appear unaddressed, while others are additional concerns identified during my own review. Collectively, these points require clarification and revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Response:

We sincerely thank the Academic Editor for the careful evaluation of our revised manuscript and for recognizing the significance and potential policy implications of our protocol. We are grateful for the acknowledgment that the manuscript addresses a vital evidence gap and that the revisions have strengthened the clarity and quality of the paper.

We appreciate the editor’s observation that several key issues remain unresolved. We have carefully reviewed each point raised in both the current and previous reviews and have comprehensively addressed all outstanding concerns in this version of the manuscript.

In the subsequent paragraphs, we responded to each comment/query raised by the editor and reviewer.

Comment 1. Age range is inconsistently described as “under 5,” “<6,” and “preschool.” Please standardize across the title, abstract, methods, and eligibility table.

Response: We thank the reviewer for identifying this critical point regarding consistency in the age range terminology. We have now standardized the description of the target population across the entire manuscript. The term “preschool children (0-6 years)” is used consistently across the manuscript. In the inclusion criteria, we have also specified a “mean/median age of 6 years” as the inclusion criteria, as many included studies provided this information.

Comment 2. The phrase “high-income western countries” is ambiguous. If all high-income countries (per World Bank) are eligible, state this clearly. If only a subset of “western” countries are intended, define them explicitly and ensure the search strategy matches.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. We acknowledge that the term “high-income western countries” could appear ambiguous; however, its use in our protocol is intentional and contextually valid. Our study focuses on migrant and refugee populations who predominantly resettle in high-income Western nations, such as those in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania, which collectively host the majority of global refugee and migrant populations from low- and middle-income countries.

This pattern of migration has been well documented in the literature. For instance, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2023) and the OECD (2022) report that high-income Western countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Australia, continue to be the primary destinations for resettlement and immigration. Moreover, the list of Western countries was obtained from an experienced librarian who was involved in the search.

Therefore, retaining the term “high-income Western countries” accurately reflects both the geographic and socioeconomic contexts most relevant to our research question. Many published studies have used the term “high-income Western countries”. Below are some of the published papers for your record:

1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362400162X

2) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170700

To ensure transparency, we have now clarified this in the revised manuscript, explicitly mentioning why we have chosen “Western countries” and citing relevant literature.

We have added “In this review, ‘high-income Western countries’ refers to nations in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania that are classified as high-income by the World Bank [31] and represent major destinations for migrant and refugee resettlement through different migration pathways, such as skilled, family, and specific eligibility categories, along with refugee and humanitarian initiatives. Individuals migrating from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to Western nations often originate from collectivist societies that are transitioning towards individualist societies”.

Comment 3. Clarify whether you will include first-generation children only (born abroad) or also second-generation children (born locally to migrant/refugee parents).

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment. We agree that clarifying the generational scope of inclusion is essential to ensure transparency and consistency. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly state that both first-generation (foreign-born) and second-generation (locally born to migrant or refugee parents) children will be included.

Comment 4. Different sections provide contradictory statements: “English only” vs “no restrictions.” Please decide on one policy. If restricted to English, provide a rationale and acknowledge risk of language bias.

Response: We thank the reviewer for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. We have now standardized the language inclusion policy throughout the manuscript. The revised protocol specifies that no restrictions will be applied to language during the search.

Comment 5. The Medline strategy includes many non-NDD conditions (e.g., schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, substance use, sleep disorders). This will generate excessive irrelevant records and reduce precision. Please restrict to DSM-5 neurodevelopmental disorders: autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, communication disorders, specific learning disorder, motor disorders, tic disorders, intellectual disability.

Response: Thank you for this critical observation. Initially, we had included all the conditions under DSM-5; however, during the screening process, we considered neurodevelopmental disorders only. We agree that including non-NDD conditions (e.g., schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, substance use, sleep disorders) in the MEDLINE strategy retrieved irrelevant records. Therefore, we have revised the search strategy to restrict the condition block strictly to DSM-5 neurodevelopmental disorders, as recommended.

Comment 6. The country filter includes outdated or irrelevant terms (e.g., “Czechoslovakia,” “ancient Greece,” “Austria-Hungary”). Please update to a current and justified list, or omit country filters and apply eligibility during screening.

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We revisited Medline to review those country terms and found that MEDLINE still retains them as MeSH terms due to legacy and historical geographic descriptors. Keeping those terms can support retrieval of records indexed during geopolitical transition periods (e.g., early 1990S), also help missing relevant studies that were catalogued under old labels, as we did not have any restrictions to the date of publication.

Comment 6. Database listing is inconsistent (sometimes four, sometimes five). Correct to a consistent list (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus).

Response: We have carefully reviewed all sections of the manuscript and have now standardized the list of databases to ensure consistency throughout. The final and correct list of databases to be searched includes five databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus.

Comment 7. Please specify the exact JBI tools by study type (e.g., JBI Prevalence checklist for prevalence, JBI cohort/case-control/cross-sectional checklists for risk factors). Current phrasing “relevant JBI tool” is too vague.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion. We agree that specifying the exact Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools enhances the methodological transparency of the protocol. We have now clearly outlined the tools to be used in accordance with the study design. Specifically, the following JBI checklists will be applied:

1. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data – for studies reporting prevalence estimates of neurodevelopmental disorders.

2. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-sectional Studies – for studies examining associations between risk factors and neurodevelopmental disorders.

3. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case–control Studies – for studies comparing migrant/refugee children with control groups.

4. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies – for longitudinal designs assessing risk or protective factors over time.

This level of specification ensures that each included study is appraised using the most appropriate tool for its design, in alignment with JBI methodology (Aromataris & Munn, 2020). We have revised the “quality assessment” section of the manuscript and provided relevant citations.

Comment 8. Clarify how studies at high/critical risk of bias will be handled in synthesis (e.g., excluded from quantitative pooling, included in sensitivity analysis only).

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have clarified in the revised manuscript how studies with high or critical risk of bias will be managed. Specifically, such studies will not be excluded outright but will be included in sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of pooled estimates. Their influence on the overall findings will be carefully interpreted with caution and discussed in the results and discussion sections.

Comment 9. Prevalence pooling: Specify the statistical transformation (e.g., logit, Freeman–Tukey, binomial GLMM) and how zero-event studies will be handled.

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We agree that specifying the statistical transformation and handling of zero-event studies will improve clarity and reproducibility. We have revised the Methods section to include these details. Specifically, we will use the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation for pooling prevalence estimates, as it stabilizes variances when proportions are near 0 or 1. Zero-event studies will be retained in the analysis using this transformation, which accommodates such cases without continuity corrections. This approach is widely recommended for meta-analyses of proportions.

Comment 10. Risk factor pooling: State the preferred effect measure (e.g., adjusted odds ratios) and how you will handle mixing ORs, RRs, and HRs.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this point. We have revised the “data synthesis” section to state that adjusted odds ratios (aORs) will be the preferred effect measure for risk factor pooling, as they account for confounding. When studies report risk ratios (RRs) or hazard ratios (HRs), we will not mix them in the same meta-analysis. Instead, we will pool effect sizes within the same metric and study design. If conversion is necessary for synthesis, we will use established statistical methods (e.g., log transformation and variance approximation) and report these transparently.

Comment 11. Subgroups and meta-regressions: Define a priori variables more clearly (e.g., “recently resettled <5 years” vs “long-term”), and state minimum study counts required to conduct analyses.

Response: We agree that defining subgroup and meta-regression variables a priori and specifying minimum study counts will improve transparency and rigor. We have revised the relevant section to clearly list the planned subgroup variables and meta-regression covariates, along with the threshold for conducting these analyses. Specifically, subgroup analyses will be performed only when there are ≥5 studies per subgroup, and meta-regression will require ≥10 studies to ensure sufficient statistical power.

We have stated “We will conduct a subgroup analysis to explore sources of heterogeneity where sufficient data are available. A priori subgroups would include duration of resettlement (recently settled, <5 years vs long-term, ≥5 years), geographical origin of the migrants & refugees (e.g., Middle East, South Asia, Africa, other), region of the host country (e.g., North America, Europe, Oceania etc.), age group (infants, <2 years vs preschool, 2-6 years), and type of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, learning disorders, ADHD and others. Subgroup analyses will only be conducted when there are ≥5 studies per subgroup, and meta-regression will require ≥10 studies to ensure adequate power and reliability”.

Comment 12. Publication bias: Egger’s test should only be used with ≥10 studies; please clarify this.

Response: We have clarified in the Methods section that Egger’s regression test will only be conducted when there are ≥10 studies in the meta-analysis.

Comment 13. The manuscript states support from a “Western Sydney University International MRes Scholarship,” while the submission form says “no funding.” Please align these.

Response: We have corrected the discrepancy between the manuscript and the submission form. The manuscript now clearly states that the study is supported by the Western Sydney University International MRes Scholarship, and the submission form has been updated to reflect this funding source. This ensures alignment across all documents.

Comment 14. Data availability should not be “Not applicable.” A protocol-appropriate statement would be: “No datasets were generated or analyzed. Data extraction forms and analytic code will be shared upon completion of the review.”

Response: We have revised the Data Availability statement to reflect that no datasets were generated or analyzed at this stage, and that data extraction forms and analytic code will be shared upon completion of the review.

Other issues:

1. Methods: replace “Total text will be retrieved” with “Full text will be retrieved.”

Response: We have corrected the phrase in the Methods section to use “Full text will be retrieved,” which is the appropriate terminology for systematic reviews.

2. Data extraction table: “Reviewer comments” column is unnecessary for publication; simplify to standard fields.

Response: We have simplified the data extraction table to include only standard fields

3. Clarify in Methods that two reviewers will independently extract data and resolve discrepancies by consensus.

Response: We have updated the Methods section to explicitly state that two reviewers will independently extract data and resolve disagreements by consensus, with a third reviewer available if needed.

4. References: check for duplicates and fix DOI formatting errors.

Response: We have reviewed the reference list thoroughly, removed any duplicate entries, and corrected all DOI formatting errors to comply with journal standards

5. Standardize terminology: use either “neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)” or “neurodevelopment disorders” consistently.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that consistent terminology is essential for clarity and accuracy. We have standardized the term throughout the manuscript to “neurodevelopmental disorders”.

Response to Reviewer

Reviewer #1: Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. This article is well written and the protocol is robust and thorough due to the guidance of the JBI, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA guidelines. The analytical plan is also very robust with important subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and the assessment of publication bias. I have made some comments below for the authors to consider and to hopefully strengthen the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and constructive suggestions. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the robustness of the protocol and analytical plan. Below are our detailed responses to your comments:

Comments/suggestions:

General:

o No need to capitalise “neurodevelopment/al” in the middle of sentences

Response: We have corrected all instances where “Neurodevelopmental” was unnecessarily capitalized in the middle of sentences.

o It should be “neurodevelopmental disorder”, not “neurodevelopment disorder”

Response: We have standardized terminology throughout the manuscript to “neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)” in line with DSM-5.

o There are inconsistencies in how the target population is mentioned (e.g., “<6 years”, “children between 0 and 5 years”, “children unde

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers 3_ 09 Oct 2025.docx

pone.0314333.s005.docx (36.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Selcuk Guven

10 Nov 2025

Prevalence and risk factors of neurodevelopmental disorders among migrant and refugee preschool children in high-income western countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

PONE-D-24-50733R2

Dear Dr. Rahaman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Selcuk Guven, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your careful and thorough revisions. You have successfully addressed all concerns raised in the previous review round, and the manuscript has been significantly strengthened as a result. I am pleased to inform you that the revised version now meets the journal’s standards, and I will recommend it for acceptance.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Selcuk Guven

PONE-D-24-50733R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahaman,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Selcuk Guven

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supporting information.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0314333.s001.docx (15.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 2.docx

    pone.0314333.s004.docx (14KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to the authors.pdf

    pone.0314333.s003.pdf (110.3KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers 3_ 09 Oct 2025.docx

    pone.0314333.s005.docx (36.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES