Abstract
The world today has the highest number of refugees in history. Resettlement is a durable solution for some. Due to the stressors and traumas of forced migration, resettled refugees experience disproportionate rates of physical and mental health difficulties. Dissemination of knowledge about evidence-based interventions for this population has advanced greatly; however, knowledge about implementation is scant. This rapid scoping review was conducted to identify the characteristics of implementation research in refugee resettlement and commonly reported implementation barriers. Four major databases were searched for relevant studies conducted from 2018 to 2023. Data were extracted on implementation characteristics, outcomes, and barriers. Frequency analyses were conducted to summarize the data. Fifty-three studies were included. The most frequently implemented evidence-based interventions were physical health education/promotion, trauma-focused therapies, and parenting interventions. Acceptability and feasibility were the most frequently studied implementation outcomes, typically measured by client retention rates. The most common implementation strategies were adapting an intervention to the local refugee context, training stakeholders, and using iterative evaluation. Reported rates of desirable outcomes were high. Most studies used mixed methods, one-group pretest–posttest, or qualitative research designs. The most cited implementation barriers were lack of time, budget constraints, workflow disruption, and limited availability of interpreters. This study is the first to assess implementation research in refugee resettlement. This is a nascent field with potential for improving service quality and outcomes for this vulnerable population. Limitations and suggestions for application are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Refugees are people who have been forcibly displaced from their countries by war, violence, conflict, or persecution. Globally, the number of refugees nearly tripled in the past dozen years, from 10.5 million in 2010 to approximately 27 million in mid-2022 (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]). Refugee resettlement is one durable solution pursued by the UNHCR as part of its core mandate. Resettlement is the relocation of a refugee from a country of asylum (usually a neighboring country) to a third country that provides them permanent residency and the opportunity for eventual citizenship (UNHCR, 2022b, 2022c). In 2022, refugees were resettled in 25 countries, the top five being the USA, Canada, Germany, Australia, and Sweden (UNHCR, 2022d). An estimated 1.5 million refugees currently need resettlement (UNHCR, 2022d), and this number will increase in years to come due to continuing conflicts and human rights violations worldwide.
Due to stressors and traumas experienced before, during, and after migration, refugees experience many challenges in resettlement, including risks to their physical and mental health. In resettlement, refugees often experience physical health disparities due to social determinants such as low health literacy, linguistic and cultural barriers, and institutional discrimination (Harsch & Bittlingmayer, 2018; World Health Organization, 2022). Regarding mental health, a recent meta-analysis of studies on refugees, mostly in resettlement countries, estimated high prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (31%) and depression (32%), which appear to persist for many years post-migration (Blackmore et al., 2020). To help refugees enhance their well-being, become economically self-sufficient, and integrate with their new environment, governmental and non-governmental organizations partner to provide resettlement services such as cultural orientation, language and vocational training, employment assistance, and physical and mental health care, among others.
In recent years, resettlement organizations and researchers have called for implementing evidence-based practice in service provision (Abubakar et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2018; Fennig, 2021; Griswold et al., 2018; Sijbrandij, 2018; UNHCR, 2019). To further this aim, in 2020, the US Office of Refugee Resettlement funded the development of an electronic database of evidence-based interventions specifically for refugee resettlement (Switchboard, 2023a). This database, which prioritizes meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials, to date contains over 200 primarily peer-reviewed articles from resettlement countries around the world, together with associated evidence summaries. This database and its evidence summaries, along with increasing open-access availability, social media, webinars, and similar technological developments, have vastly increased the dissemination of knowledge about evidence-based interventions for refugee resettlement.
Evidence-based interventions in refugee resettlement may be categorized into two types: (1) interventions that have shown effectiveness with refugee populations in resettlement and (2) interventions that have shown effectiveness with other populations experiencing a similar life challenge. For example, in the area of mental health, there is strong evidence from multiple systematic reviews that cognitive behavioral therapy, trauma-focused interventions, and psycho-education improve symptoms related to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and/or general distress in refugee populations (Switchboard, 2022). On the other hand, in the area of financial well-being, there is strong evidence from multiple systematic reviews showing that financial capability interventions lead to numerous positive outcomes among low-income populations in general, but there is no evidence yet about these interventions with refugee populations specifically (Switchboard, 2023b). Both of these instances provide practitioners with the best available evidence for interventions for implementation (with adaptations as needed).
Although the best available evidence for a given outcome is sometimes weak or limited, nonetheless, the knowledge base about what works or is likely to work, and service providers’ access to this knowledge, continue to increase. However, knowledge about the implementation of these interventions is scant, and implementation research has been identified as an important priority for the humanitarian field (Massazza et al., 2022).
Implementation research aims to identify effective strategies for increasing the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions (Powell et al., 2015; Waltz et al., 2015). Implementation strategies may be classified into nine categories: using evaluative and iterative feedback processes; adapting and tailoring evidence-based interventions to the context, training and educating stakeholders, engaging consumers; changing organizational infrastructure; providing interactive assistance; developing stakeholder interrelationships; supporting practitioners; and utilizing financial strategies (Waltz et al., 2015). All these implementation strategies are applied in the resettlement context; for example, adapting and tailoring interventions are critical in resettlement since the evidence-based interventions must be culturally relevant (Naseh et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2022).
Implementation research focuses on implementation outcomes, which are distinct from service outcomes or clinical outcomes (Proctor et al., 2011). Implementation outcomes include the acceptability of the evidence-based intervention to clients and providers; adoption of the evidence-based intervention by providers; appropriateness of the evidence-based intervention for clients and providers; costs, feasibility, and fidelity of the evidence-based intervention; and the evidence-based intervention’s penetration (integration into a service setting) and sustainability (Proctor et al., 2011). Again, all of these outcomes are relevant to the resettlement context. For example, western mainstream mental health interventions are often not acceptable to refugee clients due to cultural beliefs and pragmatic considerations (American Psychiatric Association, 2020).
In the pursuit of strategies to achieve these outcomes, implementation research must identify barriers to implementation. Frequently reported barriers in the implementation science literature include resource limitations and organizational culture (Bach-Mortensen et al., 2018). These are common challenges in the resettlement context (Darrow, 2015).
Successful implementation of evidence-based programs is critical to achieving client outcomes and yet is rarely monitored and evaluated in the resettlement context. Improving understanding of what effective implementation looks like, how to measure it, the strategies to achieve it, and the barriers to implementation of evidence-based practices in the resettlement context, can help inform program theories of change, the resources dedicated to ensuring effective implementation, and what is monitored and evaluated.
Because there is no comprehensive understanding of implementation research and practice in refugee resettlement, this study undertook a rapid scoping review to obtain an overview of the issue. Scoping reviews examine the extent, variety, and type of evidence on a topic area, summarize findings, and identify research gaps in the existing literature (Tricco et al., 2018). Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews are not intended to synthesize effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterize strength of evidence (Munn et al., 2018; Tricco et al., 2018). A scoping review was deemed appropriate in light of the emerging nature of this research and the aim of mapping the underpinning key concepts to ultimately identify research gaps and implementation practice implications.
A rapid scoping review aims to balance methodological rigor with resource constraints by streamlining the traditional scoping review process (King et al., 2022). Rapid reviews are conducted within six months and typical streamlining methods include restricting the literature search in terms of dates and language; limiting the number of databases searched; using one reviewer for study selection and data extraction; and using descriptive synthesis (Haby et al., 2016; King et al., 2022). The present review was rapid due to the timeliness of the subject and resource constraints coupled with the aims of transparency, replicability, and adherence to standardized reporting standards (Featherstone et al., 2015).
Specifically, this rapid scoping review addressed the following objectives:
-
1.
Identify the characteristics of implementation research in refugee resettlement, such as implementation strategies, outcomes, and research methods.
-
2.
Identify commonly reported implementation barriers.
Method
This rapid scoping review was conducted following the methodological and reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018). All screening, data extraction, analysis, and synthesis were conducted solely by the author. The literature search was originally conducted in May 2022 and updated in May 2023, using PubMed, PsycInfo, ASSIA, and Google Scholar. Search terms were derived from the Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al., 2011), which identifies the following outcomes and synonymous terms: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, costs, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. Study titles and abstracts were searched using the following string:
refugee AND (acceptability OR adoption OR appropriate* OR feasib* OR fidelity OR implementation OR cost OR penetration OR sustainability OR satisfaction OR credib* OR uptake OR utilization OR intention OR relevance OR “perceived fit” OR compatib* OR suitab* OR practicab* OR “actual fit” OR utility OR adherence OR integrity OR maintenance OR continuation OR durab* OR incorporation OR institutionalization OR sustained OR routiniz*).
Inclusion criteria were studies conducted in the countries that resettled the vast majority of refugees from 2008 to 2023 (i.e., Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, USA; Refugee Council of Australia, 2023). Studies were limited to those published from 2018 to 2023. The search was limited to resettlement countries, recognizing that resettlement is a distinct context and process apart from other stages of the refugee journey (e.g., escape, transit). The term “refugee” as used here refers to forced migrants living in resettlement countries (i.e., refugees, asylees, and asylum-seekers). No language limitations were placed on study inclusion under the assumption (based on prior experience) that if necessary, Google Translate would suffice for the purposes of this review.
Exclusion criteria were studies that did not implement an evidence-based intervention, did not describe the implementation process, and did not evaluate any implementation outcome. An evidence-based intervention was broadly defined as a practice, program, or policy that has prior demonstrated effectiveness in a population and setting (Walker et al., 2022). The prior population and setting demonstrating effectiveness were not limited to refugee resettlement because most interventions implemented with refugees must be adapted from existing evidence-based interventions originally developed for other populations and settings (Naseh et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2022). However, the studies selected in this review must have implemented the evidence-based intervention with refugees and evaluated an implementation outcome.
For included studies, data were extracted from the full text on the following variables: country of resettlement, practice setting, occupation(s) of practitioners, number of practitioners, client outcome area, intervention, implementation outcome(s), measurement(s) of implementation outcomes, implementation strategy(ies), implementation results, research design, whether or not the study was a hybrid trial (examining both effectiveness and implementation outcomes), and implementation barriers. Implementation outcomes were specified by the taxonomy developed by Proctor et al. (2011): acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, costs, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. Implementation strategies were classified using the nine categories developed by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change panel (Waltz et al., 2015): use evaluative and iterative strategies, adapt and tailor to context, train and educate stakeholders, engage consumers, change infrastructure, provide interactive assistance, develop stakeholder interrelationships, support practitioners, and utilize financial strategies. Implementation results were categorized as having a desired effect, undesired effect, or inconclusive effect, based on the stated conclusions of each study’s author(s). Coding classifications for all other variables were developed inductively from the data in the articles. The extracted data were entered directly into an Excel spreadsheet, which includes a detailed data dictionary (please see supplemental material). To address the research objectives, the extracted data were analyzed by frequency statistics and narratively synthesized.
Results
The search yielded over 2000 records, of which 53 were ultimately included in the review (Fig. 1). Translation to English was found unnecessary at all stages of the review. The extracted characteristics of the studies are summarized in Table 1 (“Appendix 1”) and described below. The unaggregated extracted data are available in the supplemental material.
Characteristics of Setting
The USA was the most frequently represented resettlement country, constituting 34% of the 53 studies. Six additional countries accounted for another 54% of the studies. Although the search was not limited by client outcome areas, all the studies that were ultimately included using the inclusion/exclusion criteria focused on physical and mental health. Seventy percent of the studies concerned client mental or behavioral health outcomes, such as trauma symptoms or parenting skills. The remaining 30% concerned physical health outcomes, primarily health literacy.
The most frequent interventions were physical health education/promotion (21%), trauma-focused therapies (13%), and parenting interventions (11%). Health education/promotion typically entailed cultural and linguistic adaptation of video or print materials on topics such as nutrition (Bull et al., 2018; McElrone et al., 2020, 2021), physical activity (Montague & Haith‐Cooper, 2021), and maternal health (Bartlett & Boyle, 2022; Fuller et al., 2021). Trauma-focused therapies included, among others, narrative exposure therapy (de la Rie et al., 2020; Said & King, 2020; ter Heide et al., 2021); culturally modified cognitive processing therapy (Bernardi et al., 2019), and group therapy (Elswick et al., 2022; Haefner et al., 2019). Parenting interventions entailed structured programs such as the Positive Parenting Program (Arif & Van Ommen, 2021) and GenerationPMTO (Ballard et al., 2018).
The remaining interventions were diverse, such as care coordination/integration (e.g., Chua et al., 2022); mindfulness (e.g., Blignault et al., 2021); family strengthening interventions (Betancourt et al., 2020; Van Es et al., 2021); and latent tuberculosis management (Pépin et al., 2022). Some interventions were at the institutional level, such as the aforementioned care coordination/integration or educating healthcare providers about refugees’ health insurance eligibility with the aim of increasing healthcare access (Leps et al., 2022). For complete intervention details, please see the supplemental materials.
About two-thirds (62%) of the interventions took place in resettlement agencies and physical and/or mental health clinics, and eight interventions took place online. For example, Lindegaard et al. (2022) examined the feasibility of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for Afghan refugee youth, and Röhr et al. (2021) examined the cost of a self-help app for Syrian refugees. Over 40% of the practitioners in the studies were mental health therapists. Peer facilitators and interpreters working in collaboration with other providers were represented in another one-third of all studies.
Objective 1: Characteristics of Implementation
More than 40% of the studies did not specify the number of practitioners implementing the interventions. Among those that did, all but four studies reported fewer than 20 practitioners, with about half of those having five or fewer practitioners. Three studies involved large numbers of practitioners. Bleile et al. (2021) engaged 190 trained volunteer facilitators in a movement-based psychosocial intervention for children in refugee reception centers in the Netherlands. Ford-Paz et al. (2022) trained 948 community stakeholders working with refugees in trauma-informed care and psychological first aid. The largest study was a survey of 2753 physicians in Canada about their utilization of a refugee health insurance program (Leps et al., 2022).
Acceptability was the most studied implementation outcome, examined in 77% of the studies. Feasibility was studied in over one-half of the studies. About one-third of the studies examined appropriateness and one-fifth, fidelity. The remaining implementation outcomes—adoption, cost, sustainability, and penetration—were examined in relatively few of the studies. The most common methods of measuring implementation outcomes were client retention rate, semi-structured interviews with clients and providers, client satisfaction scales, and client focus groups. Regarding the measurement of specific implementation outcomes, acceptability and feasibility were most frequently measured by client retention rates and semi-structured client interviews. Adoption was measured by provider surveys and client uptake rates. Appropriateness was most commonly measured using semi-structured interviews with clients and/or providers. Cost and penetration were measured primarily using administrative data. Fidelity was most frequently assessed using intervention checklists. Finally, sustainability was measured using semi-structured interviews with providers (please see supplemental file).
No measurement instruments, methods, or interpretations were used uniformly across the studies. For example, semi-structured interviews, used in nearly half the studies, were tailored to each context. Client satisfaction was measured ten different ways in ten studies, five of which used self-developed questionnaires. Client retention rates were variously operationalized as completion of all intervention sessions, percentage of sessions attended, or completion of post-tests, and there was no objective standard about what constitutes an acceptable retention rate.
The most frequently used implementation strategy was adapting/tailoring the EBP intervention to the context (70% of studies). The remaining implementation strategies were reported rarely in the studies. Most adaptations were cultural, linguistic, and trauma-informed. For example, GenerationPMTO, a manualized, evidence-based parenting intervention, was adapted for Karen refugees in the USA to address cultural background, trauma history, and resettlement stress (Ballard et al., 2018). A few adaptations were technological. For example, ter Heide et al. (2021) reported on refugee clients’ use of videoconferencing therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Training/educating stakeholders was employed in one-third of the studies, and evaluative/iterative strategies in one-fifth. For example, Bentley et al. (2021) implemented a train-the-trainers model for “Islamic Trauma Healing,” an intervention that integrated evidence-based trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy principles with cultural and religious practices. As an example of evaluative/iterative strategies, Orenstein et al. (2019) described a multi-step process of developing clinical decision support for health care of newly arrived refugees, including needs assessment, task analysis, pre-implementation testing, local implementation, staged dissemination, and feedback.
Research designs were primarily mixed methods, one-group pretest–posttest, or qualitative. There were only four randomized controlled trials. One-half of the studies were hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials. For example, Haefner et al. (2019) implemented a group therapy program originally designed for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, with refugees diagnosed with the same condition. Using a one-group mixed methods design, they examined both reported improvement in clients’ symptoms (effectiveness outcome) as well as providers’ satisfaction with the intervention (implementation outcome).
Many of the studies examined multiple outcomes. For example, acceptability and feasibility were often measured together. Additionally, authors often used multiple measures for one outcome. For example, in one study, acceptability was measured by client retention rate and a provider acceptability survey (Sigmarsdóttir et al., 2023). Because of such multiple measures and multiple outcomes, a total of 109 implementation results were tracked by the 53 studies (see supplemental material). Overall, desirable implementation results were reported for 78% of the implementation outcomes, undesirable results for 15%, and inconclusive results for 7%. Desirable implementation rates by outcome were: 76% of 41 acceptability outcomes, 84% of 31 feasibility outcomes, 76% of 17 appropriateness outcomes, 67% of 9 fidelity outcomes, 67% of 6 adoption outcomes, 67% of 3 cost outcomes, 100% of 1 sustainability outcome, and 100% of 1 penetration outcome. Table 2 (“Appendix 2”) provides examples of desirable, undesirable, and inconclusive implementation results to illustrate the variety of implementation research aims, methods, and outcomes.
Objective 2: Implementation Barriers
Of the 53 articles, 25 described barriers encountered during the implementation process. The most frequently mentioned barriers were lack of staff time (35% of 25 studies), budget constraints (35%), workflow disruption (22%), scheduling conflicts (22%), and limited availability of interpreters (17%). This constellation of implementation barriers was vividly described in one study that implemented culturally-adapted group visits as part of a program to improve primary care for Bhutanese refugee children in the USA (Bull et al., 2018):
Several challenges arose during the course of the project. Our clinic lacks capacity to run more than one-group visit at a time due to personnel and space constraints. The group visits were only possible with the assistance of an in‑person interpreter, which may pose a barrier for replication in other clinics. In addition, a significant amount of time was required to recruit and remind patients of the group visits, prepare for the visit, review charts beforehand, and conduct individual examinations during the group visit. There was a high no‑show rate for the first visit. It was calculated at our clinic that we needed to have at least eight patients in order to make the group visits cost‑effective. Low numbers of patients from other linguistic/ethnic groups made group visits for other linguistic/ethnic groups impractical regarding the time and cost involved (p. 1329).
Other barriers included lack of provider knowledge, COVID-19 restrictions, technological problems, staff turnover, staff feeling helpless, and balancing intervention fidelity with contextual adaptations. There was no evident relationship between the intervention implemented and the barriers encountered, indicating that the identified barriers are cross-cutting.
Discussion
This rapid scoping review has provided an overview of implementation research in refugee resettlement, including its characteristics and barriers to implementation. Fifty-three studies published from 2018 to 2023 were identified for inclusion, and data were extracted on implementation variables. These findings are used to identify gaps in implementation research and implications for implementation practice.
All the studies concerned the implementation of physical or mental health interventions. This reveals a gap in implementation research in other important refugee outcome areas such as economic well-being and community belonging. The results further show a gap in implementation research on case management/social service interventions, which are a major element of resettlement assistance (Shaw & Funk, 2019; UNHCR, n.d.). As well, there is a gap in implementation research on creating more welcoming communities for refugees, despite the availability of evidence-based interventions that help to achieve this outcome (Switchboard, 2021). Overall, the present findings echo those of a systematic review which concluded that “research on refugee services reflects the failure to attend to all aspects of service provision” (Subramanian et al., 2022, p. 1).
Only about one-third (37%) of the studies included peer facilitators and/or interpreters as practitioners. Amid calls for greater engagement of refugee communities in research (Deps et al., 2022; Hearn et al., 2022; Kia-Keating & Juang, 2022), these results suggest that future implementation research should include more interpreters and peer facilitators as collaborators throughout all stages of the research process to shed further light on their roles, challenges, and effects in implementation. Engaging these community members in this manner will increase community empowerment, enhance trust, generate novel insights from diverse perspectives, and illuminate pathways of care.
Acceptability and feasibility were the most frequently studied implementation outcomes. These are generally assessed in the early to middle stages of the implementation process (Proctor et al., 2011). In contrast, implementation outcomes typically assessed later in the process—adoption, cost, sustainability, and penetration—were rare in these studies. While this may be a function of time, with later-stage research still forthcoming, it is notable that there was no set of studies that followed an implementation project through all its stages. Thus it appears that these are one-off studies rather than part of longer-term, comprehensive implementation plans. This short-term, fragmented approach impedes knowledge-building. Future implementation plans should encompass all implementation stages to maximize impact.
The findings of this study bear implications for implementation research methods. Most of the studies were naturalistic, using mixed methods, one-group pretest–posttest, or qualitative research designs. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were rare (8% of the studies). There are many challenges to conducting RCTs with refugees (Cohen & Yaeger, 2021). Services often cannot be withheld from refugee clients for ethical or programmatic reasons. Refugees may be reluctant or even retraumatized because randomization reminds them of the process of obtaining asylum or resettlement, which they perceive as a matter of chance with few winners (Rondung et al., 2022). Randomization can potentially fracture refugee communities if their members perceive that some receive more benefits or better services than others in the same circumstances. Thus, rather than pursuing the RCT gold standard, implementation researchers in refugee resettlement should explore possibilities for using quasi-experimental designs to enhance research rigor in this field. Such designs may include natural experiments (e.g., Jaschke & Kosyakova, 2021), nonequivalent comparison group designs (e.g., Robertson et al., 2019), and interrupted time-series designs (e.g., Yelland et al., 2020). These methods provide improved internal validity beyond the oft-employed one-group pretest–posttest design, while avoiding the problems associated with randomization. Furthermore, hybrid trials such as the many included in this review provide an efficient means to simultaneously evaluate both the implementation and effectiveness of cultural adaptations of existing evidence-based interventions. Additionally, further attention is needed to assess organizational readiness for change and how this influences the selection of intervention strategies and impacts implementation outcomes (Kerns et al., 2023).
Studies were highly idiosyncratic in their measurement approaches, frequently using self-developed instruments. This is reflective of the larger implementation research field, where it has been argued that “the observed practice of one-time use of non-validated measures should be reduced, although it can probably not completely be avoided. In implementation science, measures often need to be tailored to target groups and settings, which implies that validated measures may be lacking. If validated measures are available, however, the reason for designing a new measure needs to be particularly convincing” (Wensing, 2021, p. 3). The most frequently used implementation outcome measure was client retention rate, which varied widely from 20 to 100%. Yet, there was no consensus about an acceptable rate. However, one of the included studies, a meta-analysis of dropout rates from mental health interventions for refugees, found an average dropout rate of 19%, similar to non-refugee populations (Semmlinger et al., 2021). Like the present study, Semmlinger et al. (2021) also found wide variation in definitions of dropout. They recommended that a duration- or dose-based operationalization of dropout be used. Therefore, it is proposed here that a retention rate of approximately 80% be considered the threshold for “acceptable” retention. Such a uniform cutoff would be consistent with a “common elements” approach to intervention research (Engell et al., 2023).
Finally, any consideration of implementation science in refugee resettlement must address the lack of organizational capacity, as evidenced by the identified budget and staffing barriers. It is well-established, for example, that the US resettlement program is severely underfunded (Brown & Scribner, 2014; Fee, 2019; Hanna, 2011), thus limiting organizational capacity to conduct implementation research and practice. In this vein, it is noteworthy that none of the studies examined the influence of the larger socio-economic-political environment, including organizational leadership and culture, well-known factors affecting implementation (Bauer et al., 2015). Future research on these influences in resettlement implementation research and practice is imperative to gain a fuller understanding of this multisystemic context.
Limitations
This rapid scoping review has several limitations. Consistent with the nature of rapid reviews, only published academic research articles were accessed; the search was limited to publications between 2018 and 2023. Moreover, a sole reviewer conducted the study selection and data extraction; this may have introduced bias in study selection, data extraction, and interpretation. A larger review team would allow any discrepancies to be resolved by consensus, thereby potentially reducing bias. Additionally, this study is limited to the resettlement context and is not generalizable to other refugee settings such as camps. Further, this study examined implementation barriers but not facilitators. As such, this study is exploratory and is intended to open future pathways for more rigorous implementation research and application in this area.
Conclusion
This study is the first to assess the landscape of implementation research in refugee resettlement. This is a nascent field with potential for improving service quality and client outcomes for this vulnerable population. Several suggestions for improvement of implementation research have been made. To effectively and efficiently help forcibly displaced people build new lives, all stakeholders—funders, donors, resettlement agencies, physical and mental health providers, and refugee communities—must collaborate to enhance the implementation of evidence-based practice in refugee resettlement.
References
*Included in rapid scoping review
Abubakar, I., Aldridge, R. W., Devakumar, D., Orcutt, M., Burns, R., Barreto, M. L., Dhavan, P., Fouad, F. M., Groce, N., Guo, Y., Hargreaves, S., Knipper, M., Miranda, J. J., Madise, N., Kumar, B., Mosca, D., McGovern, T., Rubenstein, L., Sammonds, P., & Sawyer, S. M., UCL–Lancet Commission on Migration and Health. (2018). The UCL-lancet commission on migration and health: The health of a world on the move. Lancet, 392(10164), 2606–2654. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32114-7
American Psychiatric Association (2020). Mental health facts on refugees, asylum-seekers, & survivors of forced displacement. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Cultural-Competency/Mental-Health-Disparities/Mental-Health-Facts-for-Refugees.pdf
*Arif, A., & Van Ommen, C. (2021). The utility of the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) for refugee background parents. Journal of Family Studies, 25, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2021.1942139
Bach-Mortensen, A. M., Lange, B. C., & Montgomery, P. (2018). Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 13, 1–19.
*Ballard, J., Wieling, E., & Forgatch, M. (2018). Feasibility of implementation of a parenting intervention with Karen refugees resettled from Burma. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(2), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12286
*Bartlett, R., & Boyle, J. A. (2022). Developing multi-language maternal health education videos for refugee and migrant women in southeast Melbourne. Midwifery, 111, 103369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103369
Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9
*Bentley, J. A., Feeny, N. C., Dolezal, M. L., Klein, A., Marks, L. H., Graham, B., & Zoellner, L. A. (2021). Islamic trauma healing: Integrating faith and empirically supported principles in a community-based program. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 28(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2020.10.005
*Bernardi, J., Dahiya, M., & Jobson, L. (2019). Culturally modified cognitive processing therapy for Karen refugees with posttraumatic stress disorder: A pilot study. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 26(5), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2373
*Betancourt, T. S., Berent, J. M., Freeman, J., Frounfelker, R. L., Brennan, R. T., Abdi, S., Malim, A., Abdi, A., Mishra, T., Gautam, B., Creswell, J. W., & Beardslee, W. R. (2020). Family-based mental health promotion for Somali Bantu and Bhutanese refugees: Feasibility and acceptability trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(3), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.08.023
Blackmore, R., Boyle, J. A., Fazel, M., Ranasinha, S., Gray, K. M., Fitzgerald, G., Misso, M., & Gibson-Helm, M. (2020). The prevalence of mental illness in refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 17(9), e1003337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003337
*Bleile, A. C., Koppenol-Gonzalez, G. V., Verreault, K., Abeling, K., Hofman, E., Vriend, W., Hasan, A., & Jordans, M. J. (2021). Process evaluation of TeamUp: A movement-based psychosocial intervention for refugee children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-021-00450-6
*Blignault, I., Saab, H., Woodland, L., & O’Callaghan, C. (2021). Cultivating mindfulness: Evaluation of a community-based mindfulness program for Arabic-speaking women in Australia. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02146-z
Brown, A., & Scribner, T. (2014). Unfulfilled promises, future possibilities: The refugee resettlement system in the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/233150241400200203
*Bull, J., Cabral, K., & Kvach, E. (2018). Failure to thrive among immigrant and refugee children: A quality improvement project to innovate a primary care approach. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 29(4), 1319–1332. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2018.0098
*Burchert, S., Alkneme, M. S., Bird, M., Carswell, K., Cuijpers, P., Hansen, P., Heim, E., Shehadeh, M. H., Sijbrandij, M., van’t Hof, E., & Knaevelsrud, C. (2019). User-centered app adaptation of a low-intensity e-mental health intervention for Syrian refugees. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00663
*Burruss, N. C., Shaltout, Y., Hamilton, C. T., Oberti, D., Linton, J. M., & Brown, C. L. (2021). Arts-based therapy: A pilot program for immigrant and refugee children. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 16(3), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450128.2021.1966707
Cheng, I-H., Advocat, J. R., Vasi, S., Enticott, J., Willey, S., Wahidi, S., Crock, B., Raghavan, A., Vandenberg, B., Gunatillaka, N., Wong, V., Girdwood, A., Rottler, A., Blackmore, R., Gibson-Helm, M., & Boyle, J. (2018). A rapid review of evidence-based information, best practices and lessons learned in addressing the health needs of refugees and migrants: Report to the World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/a-rapid-review-of-evidence-based-information-best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-addressing-the-health-needs-of-refugees-and-migrants
Chua, D., Sackey, D., Jones, M., Smith, M., Ball, L., & Johnson, T. (2022). The M-CHooSe pilot: The acceptability and utilisation of the nurse-led, general practice clinic co-located ‘Mater CALD Healthcare Coordinator Service’ for patients from multicultural backgrounds. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 29(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22147
Cohen, F., & Yaeger, L. (2021). Task-shifting for refugee mental health and psychosocial support: a scoping review of services in humanitarian settings through the lens of RE-AIM. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, 2633489521998790. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489521998790
*Crooks, C. V., Hoover, S., & Smith, A. C. (2020). Feasibility trial of the school-based STRONG intervention to promote resilience among newcomer youth. Psychology in the Schools, 57(12), 1815–1829. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22366
Darrow, J. H. (2015). Getting refugees to work: A street-level perspective of refugee resettlement policy. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34(2), 78–106.
*de Freitas Girardi, J., Miconi, D., Lyke, C., & Rousseau, C. (2020). Creative expression workshops as Psychological First Aid (PFA) for asylum-seeking children: An exploratory study in temporary shelters in Montreal. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25(2), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104519891760
*de la Rie, S. M., Smid, G. E., van der Aa, N., van Est, L. A., Bisseling, E., & Boelen, P. A. (2020). Feasibility of narrative exposure therapy in an outpatient day treatment programme for refugees: Improvement in symptoms and global functioning. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11(1), 1759983. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1759983
Deps, P. D., Rezende, I., Andrade, M. A. C., & Collin, S. M. (2022). Ethical issues in research with refugees. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 24, 100813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2022.100813
*Elliott, S. A., Wright, K. S., Scott, S. D., Mohamed, M., Farah, A., & Hartling, L. (2022). Adapting child health knowledge translation tools for Somali parents: Qualitative study exploring process considerations and stakeholder engagement. JMIR Formative Research, 6(4), e36354. https://doi.org/10.2196/36354
*Elswick, S., Washington, G., Mangrum-Apple, H., Peterson, C., Barnes, E., Pirkey, P., & Watson, J. (2022). Trauma healing Club: Utilizing culturally responsive processes in the implementation of an after-school group intervention to address trauma among African refugees. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 15(1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.2196/36354
Engell, T., Stadnick, N. A., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2023). Common elements approaches to implementation research and practice: Methods and integration with intervention science. Global Implementation Research and Applications, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-023-00077-4
Featherstone, R. M., Dryden, D. M., Foisy, M., Guise, J. M., Mitchell, M. D., Paynter, R. A., et al. (2015). Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
Fee, M. (2019). Paper integration: The structural constraints and consequences of the US refugee resettlement program. Migration Studies, 7(4), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mny016
Fennig, M. (2021). Cultural adaptations of evidence-based mental health interventions for refugees: Implications for clinical social work. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(3), 964–981. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa024
*Ford-Paz, R. E., DeCarlo Santiago, C., Bustos, Y., Uriarte, J. J., Distel, L. M. L., Ros, A. M., Coyne, C. A., Rivera, C., Guo, S., Rusch, D., St. Jean, N., Hilado, A., Zarzour, H., Gomez, R., & Cicchetti, C. (2022). Acceptability and initial promise of trainings for community stakeholders serving refugee and immigrant families. Psychological Services. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000457
*Fuller, T. J., Leonard, M., Cochran, J., Hutchins, R. J., Brioche, R., Kitiabi, H., & Cranmer, J. N. (2021). Collaborative development and implementation of a video-based curriculum expansion to improve refugee women’s birth experiences in the United States. Health Promotion Practice, 22(2), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839920915191
*Garoff, F., Kangaslampi, S., & Peltonen, K. (2019). Development and implementation of a group based mental health intervention for unaccompanied minors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12497
*Griggs, M., Liu, C., & Cooper, K. (2022). Pilot evaluation of a group stabilisation intervention for refugees and asylum seekers with PTSD. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 50(1), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246582100028X
Griswold, K. S., Pottie, K., Kim, I., Kim, W., & Lin, L. (2018). Strengthening effective preventive services for refugee populations: Toward communities of solution. Public Health Reviews, 39(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-018-0082-y
*Groman, A. S., Chen, X. N., & Lavigne, J. E. (2020). Applying the model for improvement to a student-run quality improvement project in a refugee center: A pilot study. Innovations in Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v11i1.2202
Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2016). What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Research, Policy, and Systems, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
*Haefner, J., Abedi, M., Morgan, S., & McFarland, M. (2019). Using a Veterans Affairs posttraumatic stress disorder group therapy program with refugees. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 57(5), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20181220-02
Hanna, T. E. (2011). No refuge for Iraqi refugees: How the United States can improve its refugee resettlement policies. California Western International Law Journal, 42, 189–218.
Harsch, S., & Bittlingmayer, U. H. (2018). Health literacy of refugees: A systematic review and a critical discussion. European Journal of Public Health, 28(4), cky218.197. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky218.197
Hearn, F., Biggs, L., Brown, S., Tran, L., Shwe, S., Noe, T. M. P., Toke, S., Alias, M. A., Essa, M., Hydari, S., Swarc, J., & Riggs, E. (2022). Having a say in research directions: The role of community researchers in participatory research with communities of refugee and migrant background. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4844. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084844
*Huisken, A., Bottorff, J. L., & Nesmith, C. (2021). Evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of the Healthy Together program for immigrant and refugee families in Canada. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 17(4), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2019-0101
*Hynie, M., Jaimes, A., Oda, A., Rivest-Beauregard, M., Perez Gonzalez, L., Ives, N., Ahmad, F., Kuo, B. C. H., Arya, N., Bokore, N., & McKenzie, K. (2022). Assessing virtual mental health access for refugees during the COVID-19 pandemic using the Levesque Client-Centered Framework: What have we learned and how will we plan for the future? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095001
Jaschke, P., & Kosyakova, Y. (2021). Does facilitated and early access to the healthcare system improve refugees’ health outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment in Germany. International Migration Review, 55(3), 812–842.
Kerns, S. E. U., Mitchell, C., Rolls Reutz, J. A., et al. (2023). Documenting the implementation gap: Pre-implementation supports. Global Implementation Research and Applications, 3, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-023-00081-8
Kia-Keating, M., & Juang, L. P. (2022). Participatory science as a decolonizing methodology: Leveraging collective knowledge from partnerships with refugee and immigrant communities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000514
*King, D., & Said, G. (2019). Working with unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people: Cultural considerations and acceptability of a cognitive behavioural group approach. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 12, e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1754470X18000260
King, V. J., Stevens, A., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Kamel, C., & Garritty, C. (2022). Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews. Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02011-5
*Lampa, E., Sarkadi, A., & Warner, G. (2021). Implementation and maintenance of a community-based intervention for refugee youth reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress: Lessons from successful sites. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010043
*Leps, C., Monteiro, J., Barozzino, T., Bowry, A., Rashid, M., Sgro, M., & Suleman, S. (2022). Interim Federal Health Program: Survey of access and utilization by paediatric health care providers. Paediatrics and Child Health, 27(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxab045
*Lindegaard, T., Wasteson, E., Demetry, Y., Andersson, G., Richards, D., & Shahnavaz, S. (2022). Investigating the potential of a novel internet-based cognitive behavioural intervention for Dari and Farsi speaking refugee youth: A feasibility study. Internet Interventions, 28, 100533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100533
Massazza, A., May, C. R., Roberts, B., Tol, W. A., Bogdanov, S., Nadkarni, A., & Fuhr, D. C. (2022). Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises. Social Science and Medicine, 303, 114994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114994
*McElrone, M., Colby, S., Fouts, H. N., Spence, M., Kavanagh, K., Franzen-Castle, L., Olfert, M. D., Kattelmann, K. K., & White, A. A. (2021). A community-based cultural adaptation process: Developing a relevant cooking curriculum to address food security for Burundian and Congolese refugee families. Health Promotion Practice, 22(4), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839920922496
*McElrone, M., Colby, S., Fouts, H. N., Spence, M., Kavanagh, K., Franzen-Castle, L., & White, A. A. (2020). Feasibility and acceptability of implementing a culturally adapted cooking curriculum for Burundian and Congolese refugee families. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 59(6), 598–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2020.1759575
*Montague, J., & Haith-Cooper, M. (2021). A study to assess the feasibility of using a novel digital animation to increase physical activity levels in asylum seeking communities. Health and Social Care in the Community. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13575
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Naseh, M., Macgowan, M. J., Wagner, E. F., Abtahi, Z., Potocky, M., & Stuart, P. H. (2019). Cultural adaptations in psychosocial interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder among refugees: A systematic review. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 28(1), 76–97.
*Orenstein, E. W., Yun, K., Warden, C., Westerhaus, M. J., Mirth, M. G., Karavite, D., Mamo, B., Sundar, K., & Michel, J. J. (2019). Development and dissemination of clinical decision support across institutions: Standardization and sharing of refugee health screening modules. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(12), 1515–1524. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz124
*Pépin, J., Desjardins, F., Carignan, A., Lambert, M., Vaillancourt, I., Labrie, C., Mercier, D., Borque, R., & LeBlanc, L. (2022). Impact and benefit-cost ratio of a program for the management of latent tuberculosis infection among refugees in a region of Canada. PLoS ONE, 17(5), e0267781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267781
Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Refugee Council of Australia. (2023). Global resettlement statistics. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/global-resettlement-statistics/5/
Robertson, C. L., Halcon, L., Hoffman, S. J., Osman, N., Mohamed, A., Areba, E., & Mathiason, M. A. (2019). Health realization community coping intervention for Somali refugee women. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 21, 1077–1084.
*Röhr, S., Jung, F. U., Pabst, A., Grochtdreis, T., Dams, J., Nagl, M., Renner, A., Hoffmann, R., König, H.-H., Kersting, A., & Riedel-Heller, S. G. (2021). A self-help app for Syrian refugees with posttraumatic stress (Sanadak): Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(1), e24807. https://doi.org/10.2196/24807
*Rondung, E., Leiler, A., Sarkadi, A., Bjärtå, A., Lampa, E., Löfving, S. G., Calam, R., Oppedal, B., Keeshin, B., & Warner, G. (2022). Feasibility of a randomised trial of Teaching Recovery Techniques (TRT) with refugee youth: Results from a pilot of the Swedish UnaccomPanied yOuth Refugee Trial (SUPpORT). Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-00998-1
*Rosenberg, J., McDonough Ryan, P., O’Brien, C., Ganjavi, F., & Sharifi, M. (2022). Pilot wellness program with adapted social–emotional learning and COVID-19 curriculum for refugee youth. Health Education and Behavior, 49(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981211048830
*Said, G., & King, D. (2020). Implementing narrative exposure therapy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors with post-traumatic stress disorder: A pilot feasibility report. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25(1), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104519864123
*Semmlinger, V., Takano, K., Schumm, H., & Ehring, T. (2021). Dropout from psychological interventions for refugees and asylum seekers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(9), 717. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000681
Shaw, S. A., & Funk, M. (2019). A systematic review of social service programs serving refugees. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(8), 847–862.
*Shrestha-Ranjit, J., Patterson, E., Manias, E., Payne, D., & Koziol-McLain, J. (2020). Accessibility and acceptability of health promotion services in New Zealand for minority refugee women. Health Promotion International, 35(6), 1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa010
Sigmarsdóttir, M., Arnesen, A., & Forgatch, M. S. (2023). Strengthening parenting among refugees in Europe (SPARE): initial feasibility in Iceland and Norway. Nordic Psychology, 25, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2023.2175231
Sijbrandij, M. (2018). Expanding the evidence: Key priorities for research on mental health interventions for refugees in high-income countries. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 27(2), 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796017000713
*Snider, T. C., Raglin Bignall, W. J., Hostutler, C. A., Hoet, A. C., Walker, B. L., & Bailey, J. (2020). Development and implementation of a culturally tailored early childhood program in an integrated pediatric primary care practice. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 8(3), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000363
Subramanian, I., Finsterwalder, J., & Hall, C. M. (2022). A systematic literature review of service-related research on refugees. Journal of Services Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2021-0312
Switchboard. (2021). What works to build welcoming and inclusive communities? https://switchboardta.org/blog/evidence-summary/welcoming-communities/
Switchboard. (2022). What works to improve mental health of refugee children and adults? (Evidence summary). https://switchboardta.org/blog/evidence-summary/mental-health-outcomes/
Switchboard. (2023b). What works to improve people’s financial capability? (Evidence summary). https://switchboardta.org/blog/evidence-summary/financial-capability/
Switchboard. (2023a). Research. https://switchboardta.org/evidence/
Taylor, A., Radford, G., & Calia, C. (2022). Cultural adaptations to psychosocial interventions for families with refugee/asylum-seeker status in the United Kingdom: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 28(2), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12547_
*ter Heide, F. J. J., de la Rie, S., de Haan, A., Boeschoten, M., Nijdam, M. J., Smid, G., Wind, T., & Mooren, T. (2021). Wellbeing and clinical videoconferencing satisfaction among patients in psychotrauma treatment during the coronavirus pandemic: Cross-sectional study. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 12(1), 1906021. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1906021
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019). The three-year strategy (2019–2021) on resettlement and complementary pathways. https://www.unhcr.org/protection/resettlement/5d15db254/three-year-strategy-resettlement-complementary-pathways.html#_ga=2.91308825.2009662698.1659286776-63919703.1658950422
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2021a). What is a refugee? https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/what-is-a-refugee.html
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2022c). Resettlement. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/resettlement.html
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2022d). Resettlement fact sheet 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/media/resettlement-fact-sheet-2022
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2022a). Global trends. https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2022b). Solutions. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/solutions.html
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (n.d.). Integration case management. https://www.unhcr.org/handbooks/ih/support-services/integration-case-management.
*van Es, C. M., Boelen, P. A., Zwaanswijk, M., Te Brake, H., & Mooren, T. (2021). Family Empowerment (FAME): A feasibility trial of preventive multifamily groups for asylum seeker families in the Netherlands. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(4), 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12539
Walker, T. J., Foster, M., Szeszulski, J., Craig, D. W., Mullen, P. D., & Fernández, M. E. (2022). Evidence-Based Intervention (EBI) Mapping: A systematic approach to understanding the components and logic of EBIs. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1300.
Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Matthieu, M. M., Damschroder, L. J., Chinman, M. J., Smith, J. L., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015). Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0
Wensing, M. (2021). Reflections on the measurement of implementation constructs. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, 26334895211020124. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211020125
*Wieland, M. L., Njeru, J. W., Hanza, M. M., Boehm, D. H., Singh, D., Yawn, B. P., Patten, C. A., Clark, M. M., Weis, J. A., Osman, A., Goodson, M., Porraz Capetillo, M. D., Hared, A., Hasley, R., Guzman-Corrales, L., Sandler, R., Hernandez, V., Novotny, P. J., Sloan, J. A., & Sia, I. G. (2017). Pilot feasibility study of a digital storytelling intervention for immigrant and refugee adults with diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 43(4), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721717713317
*Willey, S. M., Gibson-Helm, M. E., Finch, T. L., East, C. E., Khan, N. N., Boyd, L. M., & Boyle, J. A. (2020). Implementing innovative evidence-based perinatal mental health screening for women of refugee background. Women and Birth, 33(3), e245–e255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.05.007
World Health Organization. (2022). Refugee and migrant health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/refugee-and-migrant-health
Yelland, J., Mensah, F., Riggs, E., McDonald, E., Szwarc, J., Dawson, W., & Brown, S. J. (2020). Evaluation of systems reform in public hospitals, Victoria, Australia, to improve access to antenatal care for women of refugee background: an interrupted time series design. PLoS Medicine, 17(7), e1003089.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Jaime Costigan, Graeme Rodgers, and Sarah Diner for their valuable feedback.
Funding
The IRC received competitive funding through the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant # 90RB0052. The project was 100% financed with Federal funds. The contents of this document are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Potocky, M. Implementation Research in Refugee Resettlement: A Rapid Scoping Review. Glob Implement Res Appl 4, 232–246 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-023-00104-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-023-00104-4