Table 5.

Quality assessment – Quantitative or mixed-methods tool – Those who remain behind

Reference Number	Study (n = 10)	Clear, explicit and appropriate aim	Clearly described context	Sampling approach appropriate and non-biased	Sample size adequate	Data generation tools well described and appropriate	Analysis approach well described and appropriate	Findings adequately supported by data (not over-stated)	Consideration of limitations, bias and generalizability evident	Key concepts relating to migration/ ethnicity are explicit	Summary assessment
[41]	Battaglia, 2015	+	+	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	***
[42]	Beine, Docquier and Schiff, 2013	+	+	+	+	–	–	–	+	–	**
[43]	Creighton, Goldman, Teruel and Rubalcava, 2011	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	***
[44]	De, 2013	+	+	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	***
[45]	Diabate and Mesplé-Somps, 2019	+	+	–	+	+	+	–	+	+	***
[46]	Fargues, 2011	+	+	–	–	–	–	–	+	–	*
[47]	Frank, 2005	+	+	+	+	+	+	–	+	+	***
[48]	Lindstrom and Muñoz-Franco, 2005	+	+	–	+	+	+	–	+	+	***
[49]	Lindstrom and Muñoz-Franco, 2006	+	+	+	+	+	+	–	–	+	***
[50]	Roosen and Siegel, 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)