MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2803662792 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.094

PARENTING INTERVENTIONS FOR REFUGEE FAMILIES: A SYSTEMATIC SCOPING REVIEW

2018· article· en· W2803662792 on OpenAlexaff
Ripudaman Minhas, Pardeep Kaur Benipal

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePsychological interventionRelocationMental healthPovertyNursingPsychological resiliencePsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children of refugee or asylum seeking background have multiple, complex needs (e.g. trauma, mental health concerns, separation, relocation, poverty, etc.) that places them at an increased risk for developing learning problems. Families encounter challenges accessing support during resettlement, preventing children from achieving their developmental potential. Providing appropriate support services and educational resources that address the concerns of refugee parents, will alleviate these challenges allowing for a better developmental outcome for children. To identify the characteristics of effective parenting interventions that address the unique needs of refugee families. English-language articles published from 1997 onwards were included if they described or evaluated programmes or interventions for parents of refugee or asylum-seeking background, globally. Data were extracted and analyzed according to Arksey and O’Malley’s descriptive analysis model for scoping reviews. Seven studies met criteria and were included, primarily studying families settled in high-income countries. Refugee parents identified parenting to be a major concern, citing they experienced: alienation/unwelcoming services, language barriers, and lack of familiarity with school and early years services. Services that focused on building the resilience of parents, parent education, or provided services in the family’s native language, and offered families safe spaces to promote parent-child interactions were most successful. Home-visit and family-centered programs showed particular success, minimizing barriers such as transportation and inflexible work schedules, while allowing caregivers to receive feedback from facilitators. The vast majority of studies evaluated programs implementing existing curricula and frameworks. Interventions were designed in a prescriptive manner, without direct participation by family members and not directly addressing accessibility barriers. The studies also did not employ evaluation measures of parenting practices or the caregiving environment, or child development outcomes, primarily focusing on parental perceptions. There is scarce literature describing parenting interventions for refugee families. Successful interventions focused on building parenting resilience and capacity in their native language. To date, there are no studies that employ a participatory approach to program design to tailor content or accessibility, and few that employ parenting, developmental, behavioural, or environmental outcome measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→