Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26514159›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of psychotraumatology2015

Refugee blues: a UK and European perspective.

Stuart Turner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of psychotraumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 2016: A year of records.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Fresh eyes on the European refugee crisis.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Trauma occurs in social contexts.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2016
    Article
  16. Five years of European Journal of Psychotraumatology.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2016
    Article
  17. Culture-sensitive psychotraumatology.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stuart TurnerTrauma Clinic, London, United Kingdom; s.turner@traumaclinic.org.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, the numbers of refugees travelling to the European Union are set in a global context. It is argued that the increasing restrictions placed on asylum seekers from the 1980s onwards in the UK and the associated culture of deterrence and prohibition have had the perverse effect of supporting the economic market for people smuggling. It appears that these restrictions were initially designed to deter people, most of whom would have been granted humanitarian assistance had they managed to arrive in the UK, so as to prevent them from accessing the decision-making process on asylum. Policy changes concerning travel, benefits, and other pressures on asylum seekers are also considered in the context of deterrence. The problems facing asylum seekers do not end with their arrival in a safe country. The current methods of determining refugee status are alarmingly weak. Indeed there is evidence suggesting that those who are most traumatised before arrival face systematic disadvantage. The focus of this paper is on the United Kingdom but its conclusions apply to most Western European countries. The paper concludes with some tentative suggestions for change.

Indexed as

Asylumdecision makingdeterrencerefugees

Identifiers

PMID26514159
PMCPMC4626650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.