Homestay Hosting Dynamics and Refugee Well-Being: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Homestay accommodations aim to support a smoother transition for refugees; yet, the intricate nature of relationships between refugees and their hosting families can make this process complex, which, in turn, can affect their health and well-being. It is crucial to grasp the experiences of both refugees and their host families in order to foster effective settlement, integration, and well-being. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the dynamics of homestay or hosting with a focus on understanding the experiences of both refugees and their hosting families to identify gaps in the literature and propose directions for future research. METHODS: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to guide this scoping review. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE via EBSCO, Scopus via OVID, CINAHL, SOCIndex, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, the SciELO Citation Index, and APA PsycInfo. Literature written in English and published from 2011 to 2024 that focused on homestay hosting contexts for refugees was included. RESULTS: The results of this review illuminate the multifaceted and dynamic nature of homestay hosting for refugees. The findings include motivations and barriers for homestay hosting, factors influencing host-refugee relations, and psychological and social outcomes of homestay hosting. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this scoping review demonstrated the need for tailored support for refugees to improve homestay programs for the benefit of both refugees and host families and highlighted the need of more inclusive, supportive, and effective strategies for the hosting, resettlement, and integration of refugees. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/56242.
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 | 0.015 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".