MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The mental health needs of refugee children: A review of literature and implications for nurse practitioners

2009· review· en· W2047446864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caitlin Crowley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeMedicineMental healthPsychosocialReferralCoping (psychology)AnxietyPsychiatryNursingFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review the current literature regarding the mental health needs of refugee children resettled in the United States and provide recommendations for clinicians working with refugee children and their families. DATA SOURCES: An extensive review of journal articles published from research conducted in first-world countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Review of the current literature suggests that while some refugee children will suffer poor mental health outcomes, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety, others may not. Several groups of researchers concluded that refugee children are actually a high functioning group. Many coping and protective factors as well as risk factors for poor outcomes have been identified by the research. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Because many refugee children will experience adverse psychosocial outcomes during the resettlement period, it is essential that the mental health screenings be performed during each primary care visit. Nurse practitioners have the unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of refugee children because they play a pivotal role in the assessment, screening, and referral of children for mental health services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Nurse PractitionersSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207