Social support needs of Sudanese and Zimbabwean refugee new parents in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine support needs of African refugee new parents in Canada, and identifies support preferences that may enhance the mental health of refugee parents and children. Design/methodology/approach In all, 72 refugee new parents from Zimbabwe (n=36) and Sudan (n=36) participated in individual interviews. All had a child aged four months to five years born in Canada. Refugee new parents completed standardized measures on social support resources and support seeking as a coping strategy. Four group interviews (n=30) with refugee new parents were subsequently conducted. In addition, two group interviews (n=30) were held with service providers and policy influencers. Findings Separated from their traditional family and cultural supports, refugee new parents reported isolation and loneliness. They lacked support during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum and had limited interactions with people from similar cultural backgrounds. Refugees required support to access services and overcome barriers such as language, complex systems, and limited financial resources. Support preferences included emotional and information support from peers from their cultural community and culturally sensitive service providers. Research limitations/implications Psychometric evaluation of the quantitative measures with the two specific populations included in this study had not been conducted, although these measures have been used with ethnically diverse populations by other researchers. Practical implications The study findings can inform culturally appropriate health professional practice, program and policy development. Originality/value The study bridges gaps in research examining support needs and support intervention preferences of African refugee new parents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".