Barriers and Facilitators of International Health Care Students’ Well-Being in Higher Education: Protocol for a Systematic Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International health care students encounter unique hurdles as they pursue education in foreign countries. These challenges, stemming from adjustment to new cultural environments and stressful academic programs, significantly impact their well-being. Understanding the barriers and facilitators experienced by international health care students is crucial for ensuring their successful integration into academic and professional spheres. Most existing reviews focus on specific populations or disciplines, thus limiting their generalizability. OBJECTIVE: This systematic integrative review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of barriers and facilitators of international health care students' well-being in higher education. METHODS: The protocol follows the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidance for a mixed methods systematic review. The main information sources will include PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost, supplemented with manual reference search and citation tracking using Google Scholar. The study selection will be done independently by 2 reviewers based on predetermined eligibility criteria. The study population will consist of international higher education students enrolled in human health-related disciplines including medicine, pharmacy, nursing, and allied health care fields. Qualitative and quantitative data relating to barriers and facilitators of international health care students' well-being will be extracted using a customized data extraction template in Covidence review management software. Quantitative data will be "qualitized" and integrated with qualitative data using a convergent integrated approach, as described in the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidance. The integrated data will then be synthesized using a thematic analysis approach to provide a comprehensive understanding of barriers and facilitators of international health care students' well-being. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 2408 papers from the selected databases. The findings of this review will be presented in a narrative format, supported by visualizations such as tables and diagrams. The review is expected to be completed by December 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic integrative review will identify barriers and facilitators of international health care students' well-being in higher education. The findings could inform the development of targeted interventions and support initiatives in higher education institutions globally, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the well-being as well as the academic and professional success of international health care students. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024372785; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024372785. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/59927.
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 | 0.107 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.009 |
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".