What works to improve digital inclusion among resettled refugees?
Evidence Database | Advanced Evidence Search | Evidence Summaries
Evidence Summary
January 2021
Among digital inclusion programs serving marginalized populations, there is strong evidence for common elements of success as well as common barriers. Programs serving refugees should incorporate these evidence-based elements.
- Successful digital inclusion programs for marginalized populations share the following characteristics: social support, collaborative learning, hands-on experience, inclusive program design, a multi-faceted approach, and simple user interfaces.
- There are several common barriers to digital inclusion of marginalized populations: access (connection, speed, and coverage); skill (ability to use hardware and software); and attitude (interest, motivation, and trust).
Among programs serving refugees specifically, suggestive evidence provides support for certain program models.
- Public libraries, schools, and community centers are vital sources of digital access for refugees. Refugee service providers should collaborate with these sources of digital access and skills training.
- Laptop and tablet provision programs are also important sources of digital access, and these should be explored by refugee service providers.
- Digital inclusion of refugees likely occurs intergenerationally. Children in immigrant families serve as digital conduits and interpreters for their parents; yet, children’s computer use may conflict with parental expectations. These intergenerational family implications should be considered in digital inclusion programming.
- Despite this suggestive evidence, refugee voices are underrepresented in digital inclusion program planning. More participatory project design is needed.
Future research should examine the long-term impacts of digital inclusion, as well as the potential for promoting digital inclusion remotely.
- Further research is needed on longer-term outcomes of digital inclusion as well as the impact of digital inclusion on other outcomes, such as health and economic well-being.
- With remote learning increasing, research should examine the potential of digital inclusion via remote learning.
Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2000. To identify evidence related to emergency preparedness among refugees, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target intervention terms:
Websites and Databases | Population Terms | Methodology Terms | Target Problem Terms |
Campbell Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration Mathematica Policy Research Evidence Aid Urban Institute Migration Policy Institute HHS OPRE ASSIA Social Services Abstracts Social Work Abstracts ERIC PsycInfo |
refugee OR immigrant OR “unaccompanied minor” OR asylee OR “temporary protected status” OR “victims of traffick*” OR “traffick* victims” OR T-Visa OR U-Visa OR Cuban OR Haitian OR Amerasian OR “low english” OR “limited english” OR “LEP” |
evaluation OR impact OR program OR intervention OR policy OR project OR train* OR therapy OR treatment OR counseling OR workshop OR review OR meta-analysis OR synthesis |
“digital inclusion” OR “digital access” OR “digital literacy” |
For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant filters available. All search terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only in order to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.
After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: First priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.