MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413181615 · doi:10.3390/nursrep15080293

Mapping Care Practices and Service Delivery Models for Refugee and Displaced Families in Private Hosting Arrangements: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4413181615 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBest practiceService delivery frameworkRefugeePublic relationsPsychosocialPsychological interventionPrivate sectorBusinessPolitical scienceService (business)NursingPsychologyMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Private hosting arrangements have emerged as community-driven alternatives to institutional refugee housing, offering personalized support and opportunities for enhanced social integration. However, clarity around care practices and service delivery models remains underdeveloped. Methods: This paper presents the findings of a scoping review aimed at mapping evidence on service delivery and care practices in private hosting contexts for refugee families. Following an overview of the background and methodology, we present key themes, propose a conceptual model, and conclude with implications for policy, practice, and future research. This scoping review maps existing literature on care practices; it does not assess the effectiveness of interventions or establish best practices. The review synthesizes empirical and gray literature on service delivery and care practices supporting refugee and displaced families in private hosting contexts. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, six academic databases and multiple gray literature sources were systematically searched, resulting in the inclusion of 28 studies. Results: The analysis identified four conceptual dimensions of care described in the literature: relational care and trust-building, program structure and policy integration, holistic integration pathways, and embedded equity and protection. While private hosting facilitates emotional connection and psychosocial integration, the review highlights key challenges, including variability in host preparedness, emotional labor disparities, and limited formal oversight. Conclusions: The findings underscore the need for evidence-informed guidelines, standardized host training, trauma-informed approaches, and coordinated policy frameworks. The resulting model offers a foundation to inform future research, guide policy development, and strengthen private hosting practices to ensure equitable, inclusive, and sustainable outcomes for refugee and displaced families.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.357 · 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