↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of studies with a representative sample of refugees and asylum seekers living in the community for participation in mental health research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of studies with a representative sample of refugees and asylum seekers living in the community for participation in mental health research
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0312-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne C. Enticott, Frances Shawyer, Shiva Vasi, Kimberly Buck, I-Hao Cheng, Grant Russell, Ritsuko Kakuma, Harry Minas, Graham Meadows

Abstract

The aim was to review the literature to identify the most effective methods for creating a representative sample of refugee and asylum seeker groups living in the community to participate in health and mental health survey research. A systematic search of academic and grey literature was conducted for relevant literature with 'hidden' groups published between January 1995 and January 2016. The main search used Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS electronic databases. Hidden groups were defined as refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons or hard/difficult to reach populations. A supplementary grey literature search was conducted. Identified articles were rated according to a created graded system of 'level of evidence for a community representative sample' based on key study factors that indicated possible sources of selection bias. Articles were included if they were assessed as having medium or higher evidence for a representative sample. All full-text papers that met the eligibility criteria were examined in detail and relevant data extracted. The searches identified a total of 20 publications for inclusion: 16 peer-reviewed publications and four highly relevant reports. Seventeen studies had sampled refugee and asylum seekers and three other hidden groups. The main search identified 12 (60.0%) and the grey search identified another eight (40.0%) articles. All 20 described sampling techniques for accessing hidden groups for participation in health-related research. Key design considerations were: an a priori aim to recruit a representative sample; a reliable sampling frame; recording of response rates; implementation of long recruitment periods; using multiple non-probability sampling methods; and, if possible, including a probability sampling component. Online social networking sites were used by one study. Engagement with the refugee and asylum seeker group was universally endorsed in the literature as necessary and a variety of additional efforts to do this were reported. The strategies for increasing the likelihood of a representative sample of this hidden group were identified and will assist researchers when doing future research with refugee groups. These findings encourage more rigorous reporting of future studies so that the representativeness of samples of these groups in research can be more readily assessed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 13%
Psychology 17 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 46 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,217,361
of 18,110,549 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#565
of 1,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,620
of 316,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,110,549 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them