Barriers to accessing mental health care for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries: A scoping review of reviews mapping demand and supply-side factors onto a conceptual framework

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102491
{"title":"Barriers to accessing mental health care for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries: A scoping review of reviews mapping demand and supply-side factors onto a conceptual framework","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study undertakes a scoping review of reviews on barriers to accessing mental health care for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries. By assessing mental health care access using the Levesque's conceptual framework, we identify barriers along the patient care pathway and highlight research gaps. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, 10 relevant systematic and scoping reviews were identified and analyzed. Seven common barriers were identified, that could be located across different stages of the conceptual framework. Demand-side barriers included: (1) refugees' understanding of mental illness, (2) fear of stigma, (3) lack of awareness of services, (4) attitudes towards formal treatment; while supply-side barriers comprised: (5) language barriers, (6) practical and structural issues, and (7) providers' attitudes and competence. There was a focus on demand-side barriers as key determinants for low service use. We observed a paucity of quantitative studies linking barriers and indicators of access to care. In the context of well-established mental health care systems, previous research has largely explained low access through peculiarities of refugees and asylum seekers, thereby neglecting the role of supply-side factors (including system structures and attitudes of service providers). We discuss how future research can critically question prevailing assumptions and contribute to rigorous evidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001120/pdfft?md5=638c77d3d7d7020b43cdd62b9017929f&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824001120-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001120","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study undertakes a scoping review of reviews on barriers to accessing mental health care for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries. By assessing mental health care access using the Levesque's conceptual framework, we identify barriers along the patient care pathway and highlight research gaps. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, 10 relevant systematic and scoping reviews were identified and analyzed. Seven common barriers were identified, that could be located across different stages of the conceptual framework. Demand-side barriers included: (1) refugees' understanding of mental illness, (2) fear of stigma, (3) lack of awareness of services, (4) attitudes towards formal treatment; while supply-side barriers comprised: (5) language barriers, (6) practical and structural issues, and (7) providers' attitudes and competence. There was a focus on demand-side barriers as key determinants for low service use. We observed a paucity of quantitative studies linking barriers and indicators of access to care. In the context of well-established mental health care systems, previous research has largely explained low access through peculiarities of refugees and asylum seekers, thereby neglecting the role of supply-side factors (including system structures and attitudes of service providers). We discuss how future research can critically question prevailing assumptions and contribute to rigorous evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高收入国家的难民和寻求庇护者获得心理健康护理的障碍:将供需双方因素映射到概念框架中的审查范围界定研究
本研究对高收入国家的难民和寻求庇护者在获得心理健康护理方面遇到的障碍进行了范围界定。通过使用 Levesque 的概念框架评估心理健康护理的获取情况,我们确定了患者护理路径上的障碍,并强调了研究缺口。按照 PRISMA-ScR 指南,我们确定并分析了 10 篇相关的系统性综述和范围界定综述。我们确定了七种常见的障碍,它们可以跨越概念框架的不同阶段。需求方面的障碍包括(供方障碍包括:(5) 语言障碍;(6) 实际和结构问题;(7) 提供者的态度和能力。需求方的障碍是造成服务使用率低的主要决定因素。我们注意到,很少有定量研究将障碍与获得护理的指标联系起来。在完善的精神卫生保健系统背景下,以往的研究大多通过难民和寻求庇护者的特殊性来解释低使用率,从而忽视了供应方因素(包括系统结构和服务提供者的态度)的作用。我们将讨论未来的研究如何批判性地质疑普遍的假设,并为严谨的证据做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Factors related to help-seeking and service utilization for professional mental healthcare among young people: An umbrella review Positive health outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep and paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates Gender nonconformity and common mental health problems: A meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1