MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409475790 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319743

Experiences of immigrants when accessing mental health services and psychosocial supports in Canada: Protocol for a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4409475790 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Temitayo Eniola Sodunke, Gerald Agyapong-Opoku, Omolayo Anjorin, Belinda Agyapong, Mutiat Sulyman, Sanjana Sridharan, Ejemai Eboreime

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersQEII Foundation
KeywordsMental healthPsychosocialInclusion (mineral)Systematic reviewMedicinePopulationGrey literatureStressorPsychologyMedical educationMEDLINEApplied psychologyNursingClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the mental health needs of immigrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds are a growing concern, as they are at a higher risk for adverse mental health outcomes compared to native-born Canadians. These challenges are often driven by stressors experienced both before and after their settlement. The limited research on immigrant experiences in accessing mental health and psychosocial support highlights the need for our study. Compounding this gap, existing data reveal significant challenges immigrants face in accessing mental health services. Therefore, to better understand and address the needs of Canada's immigrant population, we are conducting a scoping review to identify and synthesize the existing literature on immigrants' experiences when accessing mental health services and psychosocial support. This scoping review will follow the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and complimented by Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping review. To ensure intercoder reliability (ICR), the team will conduct a calibration exercise before initiating the screening process. This will involve an independent screening by all reviewers followed by a team discussion to resolve any discrepancies and clarify the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. All stages of the selection process will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based software platform designed to support systematic reviews. Our analysis will involve both quantitative and qualitative approaches to align with the nature of the included articles and address our research questions. By synthesizing the current state of knowledge, identifying gaps, and highlighting potential solutions, this protocol aims to contribute to the ongoing crucial efforts to improve mental health outcomes for Canada's immigrant population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.013
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→