Community integration, quality of life, thriving, and mental health among refugees and asylum seekers. A London service provider perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This article explores how systemic injustices and social inequalities affect refugee and asylum seeker integration, thriving, and mental health in London. This is pertinent as the United Kingdom currently operates a 'broken' asylum system with unfair policies and a 'tough' immigration rhetoric which makes it extraordinarily difficult for asylum seekers and refugees to achieve community integration, have a good quality of life, be able to thrive, and have good health including mental health. Paradoxically, the United Kingdom Home Office also features an Indicators for Integration Framework to provide practical ways to design more effective strategies, monitor services and evaluated integration interventions. Methods: This study employed a qualitative research design including semi-structured interviews with 19 mental health and psychosocial support service providers working in third-sector organizations in London. Results: The study results show that the current asylum system severely undermines efforts to support asylum seekers and refugees with their integration. All participants highlighted that asylum seekers and refugees lacked experienced poor quality of life and faced structural challenges to build meaningful social connections; to have access education, fair employment and good work; to achieve good mental health and wellbeing; and to be able to thrive. Discussion: To improve community integration, quality of life, thriving, and mental health for asylum seekers and refugees in London and, beyond, the United Kingdom, four recommendations are made on structural and service-levels: (1) reform of the current asylum system by centering human rights; (2) implement and carry out needs assessments among asylum seekers and refugees focussing on key social determinants; (3) ensure asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the NHS Inclusion Health framework; and (4) extend the NHS Patient and Carer Race Equality framework beyond England. To be effective, all four initiatives need to be grounded in a participatory approach that meaningfully involves diverse groups of stakeholders including asylum seekers and refugees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".