MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293767546 · doi:10.5964/ejop.4665

Refugee mothers mental health and social support needs: A systematic review of interventions for refugee mothers

2022· review· en· W4293767546 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Roger Abi Zeid Daou

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope’s Journal of Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePsychological interventionMental healthAnxietyPsychologySystematic reviewMedicinePsychiatryMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Refugee mothers endure and are at risk for depression, post-traumatic stress, suicidality, and anxiety. There is a gap in the literature regarding interventions for refugee mothers' mental health and well-being. Interventions involving refugee mothers rarely provide adequate support for refugee mothers' specific mental health needs and challenges. This paper presents empirical evidence to contextualize the risks refugee mothers face, such as gender-based violence, mental health challenges, and language barriers. Then, the paper provides a critical systematic review of interventions conducted with refugee mothers. The critical systematic review suggests that creating and providing a safe space, being a linguistic liaison, community-building, and advocating for refugee mothers' needs are emergent protective factors for refugee mothers. Finally, based on the review, recommendations for future interventions followed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.348 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope’s Journal of PsychologySame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207