MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118959393 · doi:10.1080/07399330490267503

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF QUESTIONNAIRES MEASURING THE HEALTH OF RESETTLING REFUGEE WOMEN

2004· review· en· W2118959393 on OpenAlexaff
Anita J. Gagnon, J. Porter Tuck

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeSocioeconomic statusMental healthBiopsychosocial modelSomatizationClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryAnxietyImmigrationMedicineGerontologyPopulationEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because many ethnically diverse refugee women resettle in industrialized countries, several biopsychosocial factors need to be considered in caring for them. This systematic review of studies conducted with female refugees, asylum-seekers, or "unspecified" immigrants based on six electronic databases was conducted to determine which questionnaires best measure relevant variables. Questionnaires were reviewed for measurement properties, application of translation theory, and quality of representation. Studies must have included > or = 1 measure of the following: general health; torture, abuse, sex-and-gender-based violence (SGBV); depression; stress; posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); anxiety; somatization; migration history; social support; socioeconomic status; discrimination; or mother-child interactions. Fifty-six studies using 47 questionnaires were identified; only five had strong evidence for use with resettling refugee women. Thus, few high-quality tools are available to measure concepts relevant to resettling refugee women's health.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.380 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207