MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7111634757

Challenges and strategies in accessing perinatal care for refugee pregnant women: scoping review

2025· other· W7111634757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeHealth carePopulationInterpreterLanguage barrierPublic healthPrenatal carePregnancy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perinatal period, spanning from the 22nd week of gestation to seven days after birth, requires comprehensive, continuous, and high-quality care, which is essential for preventing complications and fostering strong bonds between healthcare providers and patients. However, refugee women—a population that, as of 2024, includes over 122 million forcibly displaced individuals—face heightened risks during pregnancy due to structural, cultural, and linguistic barriers, as well as discrimination and unfamiliarity with the healthcare systems of host countries. This study aimed to analyze, through a scoping review, the barriers and facilitators in accessing perinatal care for refugee pregnant women, identifying key challenges, strategies for care provision, and gaps in the scientific literature. The methodology followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, using the PCC mnemonic (Population: refugee women in the perinatal period; Concept: structure and approach of perinatal care; Context: access to care in host countries). Searches were conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, BVS, ERIC, and LILACS using standardized descriptors, with no time or geographic restrictions, and included literature in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Out of 1,107 identified records, after removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 43 studies were included in the review. The results revealed that since 2007, scientific production on the topic has increased, initially highlighting structural and sociocultural challenges in caring for refugee pregnant women, such as dependence on family authorization to access services, language barriers, and lack of care continuity. From 2015 onward, evidence grew regarding late initiation of prenatal care, dissatisfaction with care quality, and higher rates of adverse outcomes, including preterm births, low birth weight, and obstetric complications. Although multidisciplinary and culturally sensitive care models have shown positive impacts on patient satisfaction and adherence, many refugee women still experience insecurity, lack of privacy, prejudice, and insufficient psychosocial support. Most studies employed quantitative methods, particularly cohort designs comparing perinatal outcomes between refugees and local populations, revealing significant disparities. Research was predominantly conducted in high-income countries—such as Australia, Turkey, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada—reflecting contexts with higher migration flows, while low- and middle-income countries, despite hosting highly vulnerable populations, were underrepresented. The discussion highlighted that challenges in accessing perinatal care include delayed prenatal care initiation, fewer consultations, lack of providers trained in culturally sensitive practices, discrimination, language barriers, and limited awareness of available rights and resources. Additional factors such as frequent relocations, migratory instability, lack of social support, and psychological distress related to past traumas further exacerbate these women's vulnerability, negatively impacting maternal and child outcomes. As improvement strategies, the literature emphasizes the importance of integrated, culturally responsive care models, including qualified interpreters, psychosocial support, health education, community leadership engagement, and specialized multidisciplinary teams. Implementing public policies that recognize the complexity of refugee women’s trajectories and ensure care continuity is critical for equitable, humane, and safe perinatal care. In conclusion, while significant progress has been made in developing policies and guidelines for perinatal care for refugee women, substantial gaps remain in implementing effective and welcoming practices. The literature underscores the need for stronger, sustainable public policies to expand access and ensure equity in perinatal healthcare for refugee populations, particularly in high-vulnerability settings.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→French-language works237,207→