MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049740714 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01446-y

Barriers and facilitators to access mental health services among refugee women in high-income countries: study protocol for a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3049740714 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah DeSa, Akalewold T. Gebremeskel, Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefugeeMental healthProtocol (science)Low and middle income countriesDeveloping countryFamily medicineNursingPsychiatryEconomic growthAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.409 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207