Measuring the Optimal Time Interval Between Arrival and First Mental Health Evaluation’s for Refugees in Québec: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To map the state of the existing literature to identify the optimal time frame between the arrival of refugees in a host country and psychosocial assessments. We conducted scoping review using the method of Arksey and O'Malley (2005). A systematic search of 5 databases including PubMed, Psycinfo (OVID), PsycINFO BD APA, Scopus and Web of Sciences) and grey literature identified 2698 references. Thirteen studies published between 2010 and 2021 were considered eligible. A data extraction grid was designed and tested by the research team. It is not so ease to identify the most appropriate time interval to assess the mental health of newly settled refugees. All the studies selected agree on the need to carry out an initial assessment when refugees arrive in their host country. Several authors agree on the need to carry out screening at least twice during the resettlement period. However, what is less clear is the best time to perform the second screening. This scoping review mainly helped in highlighting the lack of probing data on the mental health indicators focused on during the assessment and on the optimal timeline for the assessment of refugees. Further research is needed to determine whether developmental and psychological screening is beneficial, the right time to perform the screening, and the most appropriate collection instruments and interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".