MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412690855 · doi:10.1177/13634615251327884

Mental health interventions for African refugees resettled in North America: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4412690855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evalyne Kerubo Orwenyo, Betty C. Tonui, Cecilia Mengo

Bibliographic record

VenueTranscultural Psychiatry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionRefugeeGlobal mental healthAcculturationAnxietyMedicinePsychiatryStressorPsychologyClinical psychologyEthnic groupPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of African refugees migrating to North America (the United States and Canada) has increased significantly over the past decade. Notwithstanding, the prevalence of mental health disorders among African refugees signals an urgent need to address them. We reviewed mental health interventions tailored to African refugees in North America, identified existing gaps, and suggested mental health services improvement recommendations. Using PRISMA guidelines, we identified ( n = 1,164), screened ( n = 989), assessed ( n = 79), and included ( n = 7) peer-reviewed articles detailing interventions that addressed mental health and its associated concerns among African refugees in North America. Our results showed that pre-migration perils and acculturation stressors exacerbated mental health concerns such as anxiety, depression, dysphoria, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Interventions that culturally adapted cognitive behavior therapy, peer support, and psycho-education effectively reduced mental health symptoms and improved life satisfaction. Future interventions should contextualize and incorporate African cultural beliefs and practices within community settings to promote mental health services.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranscultural PsychiatrySame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207