REFUGEE HEALTH PROMOTION IN CANADA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IHR IN CANADA REGARDING REFUGEE HEALTH PROMOTION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A PHEIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugees remain the most vulnerable members of society and face several health risks for adaptation to a host country. These include an increased risk of developing communicable diseases that are exacerbated during a PHEIC . The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the reported implementation of the IHR in Canada, specifically in refugee health promotion, during PHEICs. The chosen method is a systematic review which locates and synthesizes evidence from as many relevant studies as possible. 9 electronic databases were searched and screening was conducted on Covidence. Articles that were included contained IHR policies on PHEICs, quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies of analysis, systematic reviews, published in English, provided a Canadian context, involved at least 1 of the refugee health outcomes from the following: access to health services and quality health care provision, improved health security, improved health literacy and published between 2005 and 2022 Risk of Bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Thematic Synthesis was used to code textual data on MAXQDA to extract descriptive themes and analytical themes. 19 studies were selected for the systematic review. 10 descriptive themes were found and analyzed to determine 2 analytical themes. Findings exhibit lack of effective policy/legislation translation as well as inappropriate applications of public health restrictions and safety protocols as barriers to promoting positive refugee health outcomes during a PHEIC. The findings may also reflect a lack of consistency in implementing some of the IHR core capacities and PHAC core competencies for refugee health promotion in Canada. Thus, it is essential that future research focus on appropriate needs-assessment tools, the use of legal frameworks that can inform the capacity- building of health systems for refugee populations as well as ongoing consultation amongst governing entities, health care administration, health care providers and refugee populations for strengthening Canada’s implementation of the IHR for refugee health promotion.
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 | 0.025 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".