Behavioral and Emotional Problems Among Jordanian and Syrian Refugee Children in Noncamp Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Refugee children have an increased risk of physical and psychological illness. Data on behavioral and emotional problems among Jordanian and Syrian refugee children in noncamp settings are scarce. Objective This study aimed to assess the behavioral and emotional problems among Syrian school children refugees living outside camps in Jordan and their Jordanian counterparts. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among Syrian and Jordanian school children, aged 12-17 years, studying in the same schools in 4 Jordanian cities with the highest density of Syrian refugees. A self-reported questionnaire was used to collect information about the sociodemographic characteristics of the children. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was used to measure behavioral and emotional problems among these children. Results This study included a total of 1878 Jordanian adolescents (45.6% male and 54.4% female) and 1773 Syrian refugee adolescents (43.9% male and 56.1% female). The parents of the Syrian adolescents were significantly less educated and had significantly lower total family income than Jordanian parents. More than half of the Jordanian and Syrian adolescents had peer relation problems (53.6% and 55.5%, respectively), 36.9% of Jordanian and 35.5% of Syrian adolescents had hyperactivity or inattention problems, 44.8% of Jordanian and 47.6% of Syrian adolescents had conduct problems, and 30.8% of Jordanian and 32.0% of Syrian adolescents had emotional symptoms. On the other hand, 43.0% of Jordanian and 42.5% of Syrian adolescents had prosocial behaviors. In the multivariate analysis, Jordanian and Syrian children differed significantly in emotional symptoms and peer relationship problems. Compared with Jordanian children, Syrian children were less likely to experience emotional problems (odds ratio 0.81; P=.04) and peer relationship problems (odd ratio 0.80; P=.03). Conclusions Emotional and behavioral problems are common among Syrian refugee schoolchildren as well as Jordanian school children. They are all in need of urgent psychosocial support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".