Barriers and facilitators to access mental health services among refugee women in high-income countries: study protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugee Global Trends report in 2019, on average, there are 2.7 refugees per 1000 national population in high-income countries, where girls and women attributed to 48% of the refugee population. Evidence shows high prevalence of mental health disorder among women refugees in comparison to the general population. To our knowledge, no systematic reviews have addressed access to mental health services for refugee women. The aim of this study will be to examine existing barriers and facilitators to accessing mental health services for refugee women in leading high-income countries for refugee resettlement. METHODS: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review. We will conduct a literature search (from inception onwards) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Research articles having a qualitative component (i.e., qualitative, mixed, or multi-method) will be eligible. Study populations of interest will be refugee women at any age that can receive mental health services in leading high-income countries for refugee resettlement (e.g., 14 countries from North America, Europe, and Oceania). Eligibility will be restricted to studies published in English. The primary outcome will be all barriers and facilitators related to accessing mental health services. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using appropriate tools. Reporting will follow the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, and summary of findings tables will be produced. As it will be a systematic review, without human participants' involvement, there will be no requirement for ethical approval. DISCUSSION: The systematic review will present key evidence on barriers and facilitators to access mental health services among refugee women in leading resettlement countries. The findings will be used to inform program developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to enhance mental health services for refugee women. The final manuscript will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020180369.
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 | 0.097 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.010 |
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".