Relationship between working conditions and mental health of migrants and refugees/asylum seekers vs. natives in Europe: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Migrants and refugees/asylum seekers make up a significant proportion of the European workforce. They often suffer from poor working conditions, which might impact mental health. The main objective of this systematic review was to summarize and analyze existing research on working conditions of migrants and refugees/asylum seekers in European host countries and compare them to those of natives. Furthermore, the relationship between working conditions and mental health of migrants/refugees/asylum seekers and natives will be compared. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo and CINAHL) were systematically searched for eligible articles using quantitative study designs written in English, German, French, Italian, Polish, Spanish or Turkish and published from January 1, 2016 to October 27, 2022. Primary health outcomes were diagnosed psychiatric and psychological disorders, suicide (attempts), psychiatric and psychological symptoms, and perceived distress. Secondary health outcomes were more general concepts of mental health such as well-being, life satisfaction and quality of life. Screening, data extraction and the methodological quality assessment of primary studies by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were done independently by two reviewers. The results of the primary studies were summarized descriptively. Migrants and refugees/asylum seekers were compared with natives in terms of the association between working conditions and mental health. RESULTS: Migrants and refugees often face disadvantages at work concerning organizational (low-skilled work, overqualification, fixed-term contracts, shift work, lower reward levels) and social conditions (discrimination experiences) in contrast to natives. Most unfavorable working conditions are associated with worse mental health for migrants as well as for natives. CONCLUSIONS: Even if the results are to be taken with caution, it is necessary to control and improve the working conditions of migrants and refugees/asylum seekers and adapt them to those of the native population to maintain their mental health and thus their labor force.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".