Gaps in Understanding of the Epidemiology of Mood and Anxiety Disorders among Migrant Groups in Canada: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Estimates of mood and anxiety disorders are highly variable among migrant groups, as they are influenced by the socio-political context. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize available Canadian evidence on the prevalence and incidence of mood and anxiety disorders among migrant groups. METHODS: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. They were included if they used population-based samples, presented data on the incidence or prevalence of diagnosed or self-reported mood or anxiety disorders for first-generation migrant groups in Canada, and used a Canadian-born or long-term resident reference group. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Prevalence ratios ranged from 0.48 to 0.87, and nearly all estimates were obtained from population health surveys. Prevalence estimates among migrant groups were lower than the reference group, with the 90th percentile of estimates ranging from 1.5% to 8.2%. Risk factors for mood and anxiety disorders among migrants included being female, younger, unemployed, having lower income, and living in neighborhoods with a lower proportion of migrants. CONCLUSIONS: There remain many gaps in our current understanding of mood and anxiety disorders among migrant groups in Canada. Although evidence suggests the prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders are consistently lower among migrant groups, a lack of incidence estimates limits the strength of this conclusion. Future research should focus on comparisons of self-reported and diagnosed estimates, the use of a range of different primary or secondary data sources, and consideration of important risk factors. PROSPERO CITATION: Jordan Edwards, Malini Hu, Amardeep Thind, Saverio Stranges, Maria Chiu, Kelly Anderson. The burden of mood and anxiety disorders among immigrant and refugee populations in Canada: a systematic review. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087869 Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018087869 .
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".