Can Community-Based Social Protection Interventions Improve the Wellbeing of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in the United Kingdom? A Systematic Qualitative Meta-Aggregation Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an important and original article, which presents an excellently-organised and truly systematic review of research on the effects of community-based interventions on asylum seekers’ wellbeing. The methodology is clearly explained and would seem highly fitting for a study of this kind. The results section is particularly compelling, made all the stronger by the direct quotation of the evidence, and carefully-formed categories of findings.

I recommend the article for publication, subject, perhaps, to some minor additions and alterations.

I have 10 specific points for the consideration of the author(s), mostly minor technical suggestions:

1. The article makes repeated reference to the UK’s “deterrence-based” asylum policies, but these aren’t explained in the main article and are touched upon only on p. 576 in the table, with a reference to other research describing them in lines 643–648. I wonder if it would be helpful to outline briefly in the main article the main deterrence policies.
2. Line 38: “while applications are pending, asylum seekers are unable to work”. This is not strictly true, as asylum seekers may work if they have (1) been waiting for 12 months for a decision on their claim through no fault of their own and (2) the job is in shortage. Charitable work is also permitted. The author could add that this is a part of the Home Office’s deterrent policy, illustrated with a Home Office quote regarding why the government don’t generally allow asylum seekers to work while awaiting a decision on their claim. We don’t have statistics on how many people are permitted to undertake paid employment, or how many do charity work, though one may guess the numbers are small. So this comment could be changed to “generally unable to work”. This makes sense given the article’s first synthesised finding, which concerns the benefit of volunteering. The author could also say that there is nothing in the Immigration Rules that prohibits asylum seekers from studying in the UK while awaiting a decision on their claim, as study is later referenced.
3. Line 39: why not specify what the asylum seeker support is, i.e., £39.63 a week?
4. Line 47: The author writes of the “contraction of state social protection for this group”. Where is the evidence of this contraction?
5. Line 101–102: “All asylum seeker categories were considered, including those awaiting visa decisions”. Successful asylum seekers are not technically issued visas, but rather leave to remain (permission to stay in the UK), so this could be changed this to “awaiting a decision on their asylum claim”.
6. Lines 104–5: “excluded studies where the focus and respondent demographic were predominantly children and young people”. It is not clear what “young people” means here, as on one common definition this could refer to young adults who would presumably meet the criteria for inclusion in the literature review.
7. There is no justification in the section ‘Comparison and outcome’ for using Max-Neef’s theory to organise and interpret the findings. The text devoted to explaining the theories that aren’t used (such as the capabilities approach) could be deleted and replaced with an argument for using Neef’s framework, the merit of which I am persuaded of.
8. Figures 3 and 4: I don’t find this type of chart especially effective for conveying data of this kind. It would be clearer to use a simple bar chart, so that the specific number of findings can be discerned. This would make comparison between the frequency of reported positive impacts much easier – and would also save some space.
9. Lines 651–652: “However, government funding for semi-formal ASR organisations continues to decrease.” The reader might be interested to learn about how big the decrease has been – a single sentence should suffice.
10. Lines 666–678: This paragraph on the limitations of the literature used is especially welcome.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful responses. I have uploaded an attachment with my responses and have also made revisions to the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this to be a very interesting and well-designed review of qualitative research on community-based interventions for asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In my opinion, the research is much-needed, and helpfully brings together the findings of a large number of qualitative studies. I expect this research would be of interest to a large number of researchers, practitioners and policy-makers concerned with refugee well-being and integration in the UK, and internationally. I found the manuscript to be clear, focused and well-written. I only have a few comments below.

1. Could the authors clarify why the articles were restricted to peer reviewed only, yet grey literature included those without peer review? (p. 5)
2. The authors touch on the temporal nature of some of the issues raised (e.g., how support might be beneficial but only for a limited amount of time). I wondered if they might be able to provide some more commentary on this, on what the review showed about temporal aspects (i.e., how long benefits were sustained), or perhaps highlight any issues around the need for further research exploring temporal aspects (e.g., longitudinal research).
3. The manuscript helpfully highlights some of the negative outcomes associated with some forms of support. Given the systematic nature of the review, is it possible for the authors to comment on what factors are associated with negative outcomes from such forms of support (e.g., in terms of the nature of the support or other factors such as context or who it was provided to)?

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful responses. I have uploaded an attachment with my feedback and I have also made changes to the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx