The Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Conditions Among Fathers of Refugee Background: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing recognition of the critical role that refugee fathers have in helping their children and families adjust to starting life in a new country, and the contribution of their mental and physical health to settlement and family health outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize and critically appraise the quality of research reporting on estimates of mental and physical health conditions among refugee fathers. Electronic databases were systematically searched to identify peer-reviewed studies reporting on the mental and/or physical health of refugee fathers of children aged 0–18 years, who had settled in a host country. Study details and estimates of mental and/or physical health conditions were extracted, and a critical appraisal of study quality conducted. Ten studies reporting estimates of post-traumatic stress (2–86%) and general psychological distress, anxiety, depression, stress and prolonged grief (25–50%) were identified. Only one study reported on physical health. Study quality and variability in recruitment, samples, data collection methods and outcomes across studies made it difficult to estimate the overall prevalence of mental and physical health difficulties. Despite marked heterogeneity across studies, this review highlights that mental health difficulties among refugee fathers are common, identifying them as a specific cohort of socially and culturally diverse fathers at risk of poor health. The findings underscore the need for health and social policy and service delivery specifically focussed on promoting the mental health of refugee fathers and their families.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".