Table 4.

Quality assessment – Qualitative tool – Those who remain behind

Reference Number	Study (n = 8)	Clear, explicit and appropriate aim	Clearly described context	Researcher reflexivity demonstrated	Source and volume of data appropriate to objectives	Data generation tools well described and appropriate	Analysis approach well described and appropriate	Consideration of limitations and trustworthiness evident	Claims/ findings adequately supported by data	Key concepts relating to migration/ ethnicity are explicit	Summary assessment
[35]	Amin and Ingman, 2014	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	–	***
[36]	Chinouya, 2006	+	+	–	+	+	+	–	–	–	**
[8]	Levitt and Lamba-Nieves, 2011	+	+	–	+	–	–	–	+	+	**
[37]	Mekonnen and Lohnert, 2018	+	+	–	–	–	–	–	–	+	*
[38]	Patzer, 2018	+	+	–	–	+	–	–	+	+	**
[39]	Rubyan-Ling, 2019	+	+	–	–	+	+	–	–	+	**
[5]	Sobiech, 2019	+	+	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	***
[40]	Sriram, George, Baru and Bennett, 2018	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	–	***

Assessment: + (sufficient) and – (insufficient)

Summary assessment: *Low (< 4 components assessed as sufficient), **Moderate (4–6 components assessed as sufficient), and ***Good (7–9 components assessed as sufficient)