IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v11y2015i1p1-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interventions to Improve the Economic Self‐sufficiency and Well‐being of Resettled Refugees: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Eleanor Ott
  • Paul Montgomery

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of programmes on the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees. The review identified 23 relevant studies but none of these could be included in the analysis due weaknesses in study design. No studies met the inclusion criteria of this review. Twenty‐three studies were identified which were not included in the review because their design meant that the effects measured could not be clearly attributed to the programmes. Synopsis/Abstract OBJECTIVES This systematic review sought to identify and evaluate all available high‐quality evidence as to whether interventions affect the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees. METHODS We searched 18 electronic databases, examined relevant websites, and contacted researchers in an attempt to identify any relevant published or unpublished reports. No language restrictions were applied, and the search was completed in Sept 2013. Inclusion criteria were: (a) prospective, controlled methodology; (b) participants who were resettled refugees aged 18‐64 at the time of the intervention; (c) intervention designed to increase the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees; and, (d) included at least one of the following outcomes: labour force participation rate; employment rate; use of cash assistance; income; job retention; or quality of life. RESULTS A total of 9,260 records were inspected, and 26 records summarising 23 unique studies were screened. No studies met the review's inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence was insufficient to determine if programmes affect the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees as no studies met the review's inclusion criteria. More research with rigorous designs, such as prospective, controlled studies, is needed to determine which interventions affect the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees. Executive Summary BACKGROUND Globally, 51.2 million individuals are forcibly displaced and approximately 11.7 million of these have crossed the border of their country of origin and are classified as refugees of concern by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2014). A minority of these refugees are moved through resettlement programmes to a third country. In 2012, 26 different countries offered refugee resettlement, with the goals of improving economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being for those resettled refugees. There are a myriad of programmes that may act to improve the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of refugees, including employment training, education, and interventions delivered by mental health services. OBJECTIVES This systematic review sought to identify and evaluate all available evidence as to whether interventions designed to improve the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees affect participants' labour force participation rate, employment rate, use of cash assistance, income, job retention, and quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched 18 databases and the websites of relevant research, policy, and governmental organisations. We also contacted researchers in attempt to identify any relevant published or unpublished reports. Key search terms were (resettle* OR re‐settle* OR refuge* OR force* ADJ *migrant* OR asylum* OR humanitar* ADJ entrant* OR humanitar* ADJ settle*) AND (economic OR job* OR employ* OR mone* OR work* OR labor OR labour OR well‐being OR wellbeing OR well ADJ being OR quality NEAR life) AND (outcome* OR evaluat* OR effect* OR efficacy OR compar* OR experiment* OR trial OR control* OR random* OR study OR studies OR assessment OR impact* OR research*). We completed final searches in September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: (a) included a prospective, controlled methodology such as randomised controlled trial design, a quasi‐randomised controlled trial design, or a nonrandomised controlled design which provided information on, and adjusted for, baseline comparability; (b) included participants who were refugees who had been served by a refugee resettlement entity and were between the ages of 18 and 64 at the time of the intervention; (c) evaluated an intervention designed to increase the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees compared to a control or comparison group; and, (d) included at least one primary or secondary outcome (labour force participation rate, employment rate, use of cash assistance, income, job retention, and quality of life). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We inspected 8,264 records derived from the database search and 996 records derived from other sources. Initially, 26 records summarising 23 unique studies were screened. An additional 13 abstracts were also reviewed and one additional study was screened. The review authors independently examined the search results. RESULTS No studies met the review criteria. The data collection process appeared sensitive. Of the 9,273 records identified, 27 records (corresponding to 24 studies) were inspected in full text. We attempted to contact the authors of three studies that were potentially eligible for inclusion; two of these responded and their studies were excluded on the basis of the information they provided. Of the papers reviewed in full text, 21 records (18 studies) were excluded because they did not meet the methodology criteria, 5 records (7 studies) did not meet the population criteria, and 3 records (3 studies) did not meet the outcome criteria; one was excluded because the author did not respond. Several papers were excluded for more than one reason. Two papers were systematic reviews; all of the included studies from these were checked. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review indicated a need for further research on the economic self‐sufficiency and well‐being of resettled refugees. Such research needs to be sufficiently rigorous to indicate if and how interventions affect these outcomes. The authors recommend the use of randomised controlled trial designs, quasi‐randomised controlled trial designs, or nonrandomised controlled trial designs that adjust for baseline comparability. The lack of knowledge about the effects of interventions on these outcomes is surprising given the long‐term investments in programmes designed to assist resettled refugees, the number of refugees resettled, and the political importance of this subject. For practitioners and policymakers, it is important to point out this review did not find any evidence for or against any intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleanor Ott & Paul Montgomery, 2015. "Interventions to Improve the Economic Self‐sufficiency and Well‐being of Resettled Refugees: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 1-53.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:11:y:2015:i:1:p:1-53
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2015.4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2015.4
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2015.4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    2. Damm, Anna Piil, 2014. "Neighborhood quality and labor market outcomes: Evidence from quasi-random neighborhood assignment of immigrants," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 139-166.
    3. Damm, Anna Piil, 2014. "Neighborhood quality and labor market outcomes: Evidence from quasi-random neighborhood assignment of immigrants," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 139-166.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Glitz, Albrecht, 2017. "Coworker networks in the labour market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 218-230.
    2. Hellerstein, Judith K. & Kutzbach, Mark J. & Neumark, David, 2014. "Do labor market networks have an important spatial dimension?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 39-58.
    3. Or Levkovich & Jan Rouwendal, 2014. "Location Choices of highly Educated Foreign Workers: the Importance of Urban Amenities," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-093/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Hellerstein, Judith K. & Kutzbach, Mark J. & Neumark, David, 2014. "Do labor market networks have an important spatial dimension?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 39-58.
    5. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Stephen B. Billings & Mark Hoekstra, 2019. "Schools, Neighborhoods, and the Long-Run Effect of Crime-Prone Peers," NBER Working Papers 25730, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Ángel Enrique & Juana Bretón-López & Guadalupe Molinari & Rosa M. Baños & Cristina Botella, 2018. "Efficacy of an adaptation of the Best Possible Self intervention implemented through positive technology: a randomized control trial," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 671-689, September.
    9. Gerben ter Riet & Paula Chesley & Alan G Gross & Lara Siebeling & Patrick Muggensturm & Nadine Heller & Martin Umbehr & Daniela Vollenweider & Tsung Yu & Elie A Akl & Lizzy Brewster & Olaf M Dekkers &, 2013. "All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-6, November.
    10. Iranzu Mugueta-Aguinaga & Begonya Garcia-Zapirain, 2017. "FRED: Exergame to Prevent Dependence and Functional Deterioration Associated with Ageing. A Pilot Three-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Spyridon N Papageorgiou & Georgios N Antonoglou & George K Sándor & Theodore Eliades, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in orthodontics are rarely registered a priori and often published late or not at all," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    12. Milagros Molero-Zafra & María Teresa Mitjans-Lafont & María Jesús Hernández-Jiménez & Marián Pérez-Marín, 2022. "Psychological Intervention in Women Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: An Open Study—Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing EMDR Psychotherapy and Trauma-Based Cognitive Therapy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Eun-Hi Kong & Myoungsuk Kim & Seonho Kim, 2021. "Effects of a Web-Based Educational Program Regarding Physical Restraint Reduction in Long-Term Care Settings on Nursing Students: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-10, June.
    14. Xiaoxuan Gong & Shaowen Tang & Jiangjin Li & Xiwen Zhang & Xiaoyi Tian & Shuren Ma, 2017. "Antithrombotic therapy strategies for atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    16. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Carrie D. Llewellyn & Richard O. Visser & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melis, 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin Gonçalves & Giancarlo Lucchetti & Paulo Rossi Menezes & Homero Vallada, 2017. "Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, October.
    18. Jovana Kuzmanovic Pficer & Slobodan Dodic & Vojkan Lazic & Goran Trajkovic & Natasa Milic & Biljana Milicic, 2017. "Occlusal stabilization splint for patients with temporomandibular disorders: Meta-analysis of short and long term effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Weißbach Rafael, 2016. "Kommentar zu „Die Interpretation des p-Wertes – Grundsätzliche Missverständnisse“," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 236(5), pages 577-580, October.
    20. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:11:y:2015:i:1:p:1-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.