A scoping review of socio-cultural barriers to accessing mental healthcare services for refugee and immigrant women in Canada: reflections for Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review aims to identify socio-cultural barriers to accessing mental healthcare services for immigrant and refugee women in Canada, with a particular focus on Winnipeg, Manitoba, to guide the development of policies and interventions to improve access to mental healthcare services for this population. The main research question for this thesis asks, “What is currently known about the socio-cultural barriers to accessing mental healthcare services for refugee and immigrant women in Canada with reflections for Winnipeg, Manitoba?” The Arksey and O’Malley framework, 2005 is the methodology of this scoping review. MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, JSTOR, and Women’s Studies International have been searched for publications in English. The Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) flow diagram has been used for study selection. The study findings suggest that newcomer women face various socio-cultural barriers when accessing mental healthcare services, such as lack of cultural knowledge, differences in expectations, social stigma, discrimination, and system complexity. Language barriers were the most common, leading to difficulty in communication, understanding diagnoses, and accessing appropriate services. Cultural beliefs around mental illness and the stigma associated with seeking mental health services were also major barriers. Immigrant and refugee women often have limited trust in the healthcare system due to past experiences of discrimination or mistreatment. These barriers clearly indicate that the current system still lacks cultural competency in providing appropriate care. As access to healthcare, including mental healthcare, is a fundamental human right, it is important to work towards equitable access for all, irrespective of status.
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 | 0.035 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".