↓ Skip to main content

“The needs have clearly evolved as time has gone on.”: A qualitative study to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the health needs of Syrian refugees in Greece following the 2016 European Union-Turke…

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
“The needs have clearly evolved as time has gone on.”: A qualitative study to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the health needs of Syrian refugees in Greece following the 2016 European Union-Turkey agreement
Published in
Conflict and Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13031-018-0158-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Hémono, Bridget Relyea, Jennifer Scott, Sinan Khaddaj, Angeliki Douka, Alison Wringe

Abstract

By 2017, more than 500,000 Syrian refugees had passed through Greece seeking safety and asylum. Understanding how their health needs evolved over the refugee crisis in Greece and in relation to changing migration policy, and exploring the challenges involved in delivering their healthcare is timely as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) transition health service provision to the Greek health authorities. We conducted a qualitative study to explore stakeholders' perspectives on delivering health services to Syrian refugees over the course of the humanitarian response in Greece from 2015 to 2017. Twenty-five in-depth interviews were conducted face-to-face or by Skype with healthcare providers, NGO staff, and organizational and government representatives involved in coordinating and managing healthcare for the Syrian refugee population in Greece. Following informed consent, interviews were audio-recorded or detailed summaries were manually recorded. Data were coded inductively to identify emerging themes. Following the implementation of the European Union-Turkey agreement in 2016, healthcare providers in refugee camps reported a shift from acute physical health issues to mental health disorders, and heightened risks of gender-based violence among Syrian refugees. Key challenges to service delivery included a narrow model of healthcare provision and insufficient referral mechanisms for social support and mental health services. Language and gender differences between refugees and healthcare providers, and a lack of privacy and space in clinics impeded the quality of care. Stakeholders observed deterioration in refugees' mental health in relation to longer periods spent in the camps. Many also emphasized that services for gender-based violence and mental health should be prioritized. This study provides stakeholders' perspectives on changes in refugee health needs over the course of the humanitarian response in Greece. With protracted encampment resulting from migration policy, addressing mental health disorders and gender-based violence should be prioritized, including psychosocial training for healthcare providers and strengthening referral mechanisms for specialized care. The findings also emphasize the importance of providing human-centered care and gender concordant services by incorporating female healthcare providers and interpreters into medical teams. Strategic communication and coordination is needed between NGOs and Greek health authorities to facilitate the transition of health service delivery to the Greek healthcare system and to improve access and quality of care for refugees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 66 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 18%
Social Sciences 22 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Psychology 14 8%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 70 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,964,024
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#179
of 581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,782
of 328,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 328,957 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.