A chair at the table: a scoping review of the participation of refugees in community-based participatory research in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Refugees often face psychosocial complexity and multi-dimensional healthcare needs. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) methods have been previously employed in designing health programs for refugee communities and in building strong research partnerships in refugee communities. However, the extent to which these communities are involved remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on the involvement of refugees in CBPR processes to inform healthcare research. METHODS: A scoping review was performed, using Arksey & O'Malley's methodological framework. A literature search in Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and Policy File Index for articles published until August 2020 was conducted. Articles were included if they focused on CBPR, had refugee involvement, and discussed healthcare/health policy. RESULTS: 4125 articles were identified in the database searches. After removal of duplicates, 2077 articles underwent title and abstract review by two authors, yielding an inter-reviewer kappa-statistic of 0.85. 14 studies were included in the final analysis. The purpose of CBPR use for 6 (42.9%) of the articles was developing and implementing mental health/social support interventions, 5 (35.7%) focused on sexual and reproductive health interventions, 1 (7.1%) focused on domestic violence interventions, 1 (7.1%) focused on cardiovascular disease prevention and 1 (7.1%) focused on parenting interventions. In terms of refugee involvement in the various stages in the research process, 9 (64.3%) articles reported refugees having a role in the inception of the research, no articles reported including refugees in obtaining funding, all articles included refugees in the design of the research study, 10 (71.4%) articles reported having refugees involved in community engagement/recruitment, 8 (57.1%) articles reported involvement throughout the data collection process, 4 (28.6%) articles reported involvement in data analysis, 6 (42.9%) articles reported having refugees involved in knowledge translation/dissemination and 1 article (7.1%) reported having refugees contribute to scale up initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: CBPR has been identified as a methodology with the potential to make substantial contributions to improving health and well-being in traditionally disenfranchised populations. As the needs of refugee communities are so diverse, efforts should be made to include refugees as partners in all stages of the research process.
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 | 0.054 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".