Occupational experiences of forced migrants: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: International or internal migration as a result of unexpected circumstances, such as that experienced by forced migrants (i.e. refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons), can disrupt established occupations. Occupational therapists have the potential to improve quality of life by re-establishing lost occupations. Research on forced migrants has been increasing within the occupation-based literature and has the potential to inform practice with this population. Our aim was to identify and synthesise current knowledge of the occupational experiences of forced migrants. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted using the framework articulated by Arksey and O'Malley (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005; 8, 19). Inclusion criteria for selected articles included peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2003 and 2014 that focussed on forced migrant populations and that were written from an occupational perspective. Exclusion criteria consisted of grey literature as well as articles focussed more broadly on immigrants in general, and that failed to adopt occupation as a central construct. RESULTS: Based on a total of 320 studies that were identified, 24 met the inclusion criteria. Six themes emerged as a result of the data extraction and synthesis process: occupational deprivation, occupational imbalance, occupational adaptation, occupational change, efforts to maintain and re-establish identity, and outlook for the future. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: This scoping review outlines key factors that affect forced migrants' occupational experiences and highlights gaps in the current literature. The results point towards potential practice implications for occupational therapists working with forced migrant populations to help promote culturally safe approaches.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".