MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404858181 · doi:10.1007/s11920-024-01568-3

Responding to Trauma: A Critical Review of Mental Health and Psychosocial Interventions for Refugee Women

2024· review· en· W4404858181 on OpenAlexaff
Joelle T. Taknint, Fiona C. Thomas, Resham Gellatly, Maithri Ameresekere

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Psychiatry Reports · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersAmerican Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
KeywordsPsychosocialRefugeePsychological interventionMental healthPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This is a critical review of English language literature (January 2023-June 2024) on psychological trauma amongst forcibly displaced migrant women. The Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Framework was used to organize multi-layered mental health interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Findings indicate many promising community-based interventions, often delivered by trained lay facilitators. Interventions address: upstream drivers of mental health such as empowerment and economic security, group-based care focused on social connection and well-being, and trauma focused treatment such as Mindfulness Based Interventions, Cognitive Processing Therapy, and Culturally Adapted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The variety of (primarily short-term) interventions must be complemented by longitudinal evaluation. Clinicians and care systems should partner with those delivering psychosocial interventions outside of clinical settings. Continued research on the impacts of cumulative and intergenerational trauma amongst refugee women, and intervention research that centers the experiences of marginalized groups (e.g., sexual and gender minority refugees) is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.398 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Psychiatry ReportsSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207