Migration in Global Health Systems: A Critical Comparison of the UK and Armenia

Introduction

This essay will explore migration as a key aspect of health within global health systems, focusing on the UK and Armenia. It will draw on the Marmot Review to frame discussions around health inequalities linked to migration. The analysis will critically evaluate global health strategies, examine internal and external factors affecting individual health and provision, and compare healthcare systems in both nations. Through this, the essay will highlight impacts at local and international levels, with an emphasis on barriers and potential improvements. This approach will extend insights from related oral presentations, incorporating broader evidence and critical perspectives.

Critically evaluate global health strategy and its impact at international and local level

Global health strategies often aim to address disparities through coordinated international efforts, yet their implementation varies widely. The Marmot Review (2010) underscores how social determinants, including migration, drive health inequalities, inspiring this focus because it highlights how mobility exacerbates access issues in diverse populations. A brief critique reveals the review’s strength in evidence-based policy recommendations, though it arguably underemphasises global migration flows beyond the UK context.

Comparing the UK and Armenia, the UK’s Beveridge model provides tax-funded universal coverage via the NHS, which supports migrants through policies like the NHS charging regulations for overseas visitors (Department of Health and Social Care, 2023). However, international impacts include strained resources from high immigration, with statistics showing over 1.2 million long-term international migrants in the UK in 2022 (Office for National Statistics, 2023). Locally, this leads to improved public health outcomes but also backlogs in services.

In contrast, Armenia operates a mixed system transitioning from the Soviet Semashko model, leaning towards an out-of-pocket payment model with some state funding and emerging insurance elements (World Health Organization, 2021). Migration in Armenia often involves emigration due to economic factors, impacting local health by depleting the workforce; for instance, remittances support families but strain rural healthcare. Internationally, Armenia engages in WHO strategies, yet corruption and funding shortages limit effectiveness, as noted in global indices.

These strategies influence outcomes differently: the UK’s approach fosters inclusivity but faces Brexit-related disruptions, while Armenia’s reflects post-Soviet challenges, with migration contributing to brain drain in healthcare professionals. Wider research, such as Jacobsen (2024), emphasises how such strategies must adapt to migration patterns to mitigate inequalities at both levels.

Critically determine how internal and external factors impact on the health of the individual and on healthcare provision

Internal factors like health beliefs and religion significantly shape how migrants maintain wellness. For example, cultural attitudes towards mental health in Armenian communities might discourage seeking help, leading to untreated conditions amid migration stress. In the UK, ethical considerations in healthcare ethics ensure non-discriminatory care, yet personal finances can hinder access for undocumented migrants, who may avoid services fearing costs or deportation.

External factors, including healthcare policy and geographical location, further complicate matters. Social media amplifies misinformation about health services for migrants, potentially deterring uptake in both nations. In the UK, policies like the Hostile Environment initiative create barriers, while Armenia’s rural-urban divide means migrants in remote areas face limited provision. National health cultures also play a role; the UK’s emphasis on preventive care contrasts with Armenia’s reactive approach, influenced by economic constraints.

Healthcare provision in the UK includes specialised migrant health clinics run by the NHS and charities, offering services like vaccinations and mental health support in community formats. Armenia provides state clinics and some NGO-led programs, but delivery is often fragmented, with physicians handling most care amid shortages. Barriers from an individual viewpoint, such as family obligations or language issues, persist; providers overcome these through interpreters in the UK or mobile units in Armenia, though funding limits scalability.

Research from Merson et al. (2020) highlights how these factors intersect globally, while local studies, like those in the Marmot Review 10 Years On (2020), show persistent inequalities. Broader primary evidence suggests targeted interventions could enhance provision, reducing migration-related health burdens.

Critically compare healthcare provision across a range of nations

Healthcare in the UK is predominantly state-provided through the NHS, ensuring free-at-point-of-use services, whereas Armenia relies on a mix where individuals often pay out-of-pocket, supplemented by limited state and insurance coverage. This fundamental difference affects migration health: UK provisions include integrated migrant support, with statistics indicating 85% of migrants access primary care (Public Health England, 2021), though waiting times need improvement. Armenia’s system, while offering basic services, sees lower access rates, around 60% for rural migrants, due to costs (Ministry of Health of the Republic of Armenia, 2022).

What works well in the UK is comprehensive coverage, reducing infectious disease spread among migrants, but improvements are needed in mental health integration. Armenia excels in community-based care but requires better funding to address emigration-driven shortages. Barriers like cultural stigma and travel distances hinder access; implementations such as UK’s online booking systems and Armenia’s satellite clinics help, yet remote care via IT remains underdeveloped in Armenia.

Unmanaged migration health issues impact wider society, potentially increasing depression rates and reducing employment, as seen in UK studies linking migrant poverty to higher crime (Bell et al., 2013). In Armenia, this could exacerbate demographic decline. Citations from international perspectives, like WHO reports, and local research underscore the need for policy reforms to foster societal resilience.

Conclusion

This essay examined migration’s role in global health strategies, internal and external influences on health, and comparative provisions in the UK and Armenia. It highlighted strengths in the UK’s universal model against Armenia’s challenges with out-of-pocket elements, while noting barriers like access and cultural factors. The discussion revealed how unaddressed issues affected broader societal outcomes, such as mental health and economic stability. Overall, these insights emphasised the necessity for adaptive strategies to mitigate migration-related health inequalities.

References

• Aveyard, H. and Waite, M. (2024) A beginner’s guide to critical thinking and writing in health and social care. 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Bassot, B. (2023) The reflective practice guide: An interdisciplinary approach to critical reflection. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
• Bell, B., Fasani, F. and Machin, S. (2013) ‘Crime and immigration: Evidence from large immigrant waves’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), pp. 1278-1290.
• Buta, B.O. et al. (2025) ‘Environmental Health Literacy of Brazilian Indigenous People’, Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), p. 625.
• Chilambe, K. et al. (2023) ‘Experience of teachers and community-based health workers in addressing adolescents sexual reproductive health and rights problems in rural health systems: A case of the RISE project in Zambia’, BMC Public Health, 23(1), p. 335.
• Cottrell, S. (2023) Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. 4th edn. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Department of Health and Social Care (2023) Guidance on overseas visitors hospital charging regulations. London: UK Government.
• Edberg, M.C. (2018) Essentials of health behavior. 3rd edn. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Ellis, P. (2022) Evidence-based practice in nursing. 5th edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Friis, R.H. (2019) Essentials of environmental health. 3rd edn. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Hill Collins, P. (2019) Intersectionality as critical social theory. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Hoffman, R. (ed.) (2023) Handbook of health inequalities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Institute of Health Equity (2010) Fair society, healthy lives (The Marmot Review). London: Institute of Health Equity.
• Institute of Health Equity (2020) Marmot Review 10 years on. London: Institute of Health Equity.
• Jacobsen, K.H. (2024) Introduction to global health. 4th edn. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Jeffreys, D. et al. (2025) What are health inequalities? London: The King’s Fund.
• Lomas, T. et al. (2024) Applied positive psychology: Integrated positive practice. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Mazibuko-Makena, Z. (2019) Epidemics and the health of African nations. Baltimore: Project MUSE.
• McDonnell, O. (2009) Social theory, health and healthcare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Merson, M.H., Black, R.E. and Mills, A.J. (2020) Global health: Diseases, programs, systems, and policies. 4th edn. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Ministry of Health of the Republic of Armenia (2022) Annual health statistics report. Yerevan: Ministry of Health.
• Nikolas, W., Gay, B. and Nygaard, A. (2023) ‘The “environmental stewardship-health nexus” among indigenous peoples: A global systematic literature review’, Wellbeing, Space and Society, 4, p. 100121.
• Office for National Statistics (2023) International migration, England and Wales: Census 2021. Newport: ONS.
• Patterson, A. (2018) Africa and global health governance: Domestic politics and international structures. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Public Health England (2021) Migrant health guide. London: PHE.
• Robinson, G. (2025) ‘Managing long-term conditions in older people’, Practice Nursing, 36(8), pp. 298-301.
• Rosa, W. (2017) A new era in global health: Nursing and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
• Schmidt, N.A. and Brown, J.M. (2024) Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research. 6th edn. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Sethia, B. et al. (2019) Essentials of global health. London: Elsevier.
• Stephens, C., Hawkins, B. and Liverani, M. (2022) Globalization and global health: Critical issues and policy. 3rd edn. London: Open University Press.
• Warwick-Booth, L. and Cross, R. (2018) Global health studies: A social determinants perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• World Health Organization (2021) Health systems in transition: Armenia. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.