Access to Refugee and Migrant Mental Health Care Services during the First Six Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Canadian Refugee Clinician Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the mental health of refugees and migrants. This study aimed to assess refugee clinician perspectives on mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically access to and delivery of community mental health care services. We utilized a mixed methods design. We surveyed members of a national network of Canadian clinicians caring for refugees and migrants. Seventy-seven clinicians with experience caring for refugee populations, representing an 84% response rate, participated in the online survey, 11 of whom also participated in semi-structured interviews. We report three major themes: exacerbation of mental health issues and inequities in social determinants of health, and decreased access to integrated primary care and community migrant services. Clinicians reported major challenges delivering care during the first 6 months of the pandemic related to access to care and providing virtual care. Clinicians described perspectives on improving the management of refugee mental health, including increasing access to community resources and virtual care. The majority of clinicians reported that technology-assisted psychotherapy appears feasible to arrange, acceptable and may increase health equity for their refugee patients. However, major limitations of virtual care included technological barriers, communication and global mental health issues, and privacy concerns. In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated social and health inequities within refugee and migrant populations in Canada and challenged the way mental health care is traditionally delivered. However, the pandemic has provided new avenues for the delivery of care virtually, albeit not without additional and unique barriers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".