“We cannot live like Canadian”: Yazidi refugees’ perspectives on mental health, coping strategies and barriers to care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Yazidi people are a Kurdish religious minority group who have been persecuted by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The complexity of the trauma the Yazidi people endured, and a limited understanding of their illness belief models have created challenges to providing culturally sensitive psychiatric care. The purpose of this study was to use focus group methodology to understand Yazidi refugees' experiences, to provide culturally informed mental health care. Methods: Two in-person focus groups were held in Calgary, Alberta with Yazidi refugee women from Iraq and Syria (N = 6, N = 7) to assess perspectives on mental health, preferred coping strategies and perceived barriers to care. Participants were selected using purposive sampling. Focus group design and facilitation were done in partnership with Yazidi cultural brokers and interpreters. Focus groups were conducted in English and interpreted in Kurmanji. The focus groups were recorded, coded, and subjected to qualitative content thematic analyses. The analysis was guided by an interpretivist epistemology and informed by pragmatism, to situate participants' perspectives within their social context while generating culturally informed insights for psychiatric care in Canada. Results: Experiences with psychiatric symptoms (e.g. grief and loss, somatization, depression, trauma) were identified. Family reunification and community support were emphasized as preferred coping methods. Perceived unrealistic expectations of refugees post-migration, social isolation and language difficulties were acknowledged as barriers to care. Conclusion: Providing appropriate psychiatric care to Yazidi refugee women requires a culturally informed approach. Findings in this study support the need for culturally sensitive mental health interventions in refugee populations post migration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".