MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226176769 · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-01936-1

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

2022· review· en· W4226176769 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefugeeMental healthCINAHLPsycINFOPopulationCritical appraisalQualitative researchChecklistContext (archaeology)NursingMEDLINEGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryPsychological interventionPsychologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Based on the Global Trends report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee, in high-income countries, there are 2.7 refuges per 1000 national population, girls and women account for nearly 50% of this refuge population. In these high-income countries, compared with the general population refuge women have higher prevalence of mental illness. Thus, this review was conducted to examine the barriers to and facilitators of access to mental health services for refugee women in high-income countries for refugee resettlement. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases for research articles written in English with qualitative component. The last search date was on March 14, 2020. A narrative synthesis was conducted to gather key synthesis evidence. Refugee women (aged 18 and older) that could receive mental health services were included. Men and women under non-refugee migrant legal status were excluded. Studies were evaluated studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist. RESULTS: Of the four databases searched, 1258 studies were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Three studies were cross-sectional by design, eight studies used a qualitative approach and one studies used mixed approach. The major barriers identified were language barriers, stigmatization, and the need for culturally sensitive practices to encourage accessing mental health care within a religious and cultural context. There were several studies that indicated how gender roles and biological factors played a role in challenges relating to accessing mental health services. The major facilitators identified were service availability and awareness in resettlement countries, social support, and the resilience of refugee women to gain access to mental health services. CONCLUSION: This review revealed that socio-economic factors contributed to barriers and facilitators to accessing mental health among women refugees and asylum seekers. Addressing those social determinants of health can reduce barriers and enhance facilitators of access to mental health care for vulnerable populations like refugee women. A key limitation of the evidence in this review is that some data may be underreported or misreported due to the sensitive and highly stigmatizing nature of mental health issues among refugee populations. 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.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.364 · 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