MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414301436 · doi:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2025.100530

Migrant integration policies, regional social disadvantage, ethnicity and psychosis risk: Findings from the EU-GEI study

2025· article· en· W4414301436 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Xavier, Hannah E. Jongsma, Charlotte Gayer‐Anderson, Diego Quattrone, Sophie Blackmore, Ilaria Tarricone, Pierre-Michel Llorca, Eva Velthorst, Robin Murray, Peter B. Jones, James B. Kirkbride, Craig Morgan, Jean-Paul Selten, Els van der Ven, Srividya N. Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenueSSM - Mental Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthFaculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de LisboaFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéZonMwFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloSeventh Framework ProgrammeCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Ethnic groupUnemploymentSocial deprivationPsychosisSocial integrationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared with individual-level factors, macro-level exposures have received less attention in research on the increased risk of psychosis among ethnic minorities. We aimed to investigate the impact of migrant integration policies and area-level social deprivation on higher incidence rates among ethnic minorities. This study, conducted between 2010 and 2015, analysed incidence data from five countries from the EUropean network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions [EU-GEI]. The total population was multiplied by the duration of case-ascertainment to estimate person-years. Cases with a non-organic psychotic disorder were included. Exposures included population group (based on self/parental region of origin/self-ascribed ethnicity) and area-level exposures including country-level migrant integration policies and regional-level proxies of social deprivation (percentages of unemployment, low education, owner-occupied houses, single person-households). Negative binomial mixed-effects regression models were fitted to calculate the association between individual and area-level exposures and incidence of psychotic disorders. The study included 1933 individuals. Supportive migrant policies (IRR: 0.71; 95 % CI 0.68-0.73) and higher percentages of owner-occupied houses (IRR: 0.97; 95 % CI 0.96-0.97) were associated with lower incidence of psychosis. Higher percentages of unemployment (IRR: 1.08; 95 % CI 1.07-1.09) and single person-households (IRR: 1.10; 95 % CI 1.05-1.14) were associated with higher incidence of psychosis. Accounting for policies and area-level social deprivation markers reduced risk estimates among all migrant/ethnic minority groups, compared to the majority population. This is the first study on the impact of migrant integration policies on psychosis incidence. Migrant integration policies and area-level social deprivation influenced psychosis risk in the overall and minority populations. These findings can inform policies and social epidemiological approaches to studying multi-level exposures in psychosis. • Policies supporting migrants are associated with lower incidence of psychosis. • Markers of socio-deprivation are associated with higher incidence of psychosis. • Restrictive migrant policies contribute to higher risk of psychosis among migrants. • Multi-level ecological approaches yield new insights in psychiatric epidemiology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSM - Mental HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207