MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2112620255 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1690

The meanings young people assign to living with mental illness and their experiences in managing their health and lives: a systematic review protocol

2014· review· en· W2112620255 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Roberta L. Woodgate, Corey Sigurdson, Lisa Demczuk, Pauline Tennent, Bernadine Wallis, Pamela Wener

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2014
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueMental Health Treatment and Access
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMental illnessMental healthPsychologyPsychiatryMiddle Eastern Mental Health Issues & SyndromesMental health lawQualitative researchSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Review question/objective The purpose of this qualitative systematic review is to synthesize the best available evidence on the meanings young people assign to living with mental illness, and their experiences in managing their health and lives. Specifically, the following questions will be addressed: 1. What meanings do young people with mental illness assign to living with mental illness? 2. What are young peoples' experiences of living with mental illness and what is the impact of mental illness on their lives? 3. What helps and what hinders young people with mental illness to manage their health and lives? Background The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than 20% of the world's young people are struggling with mental illness,1 with similar types of disorders reported across countries. Moreover, approximately half of all lifetime mental disorders start by the mid-teens, and three-fourths by the mid-20s.2,3 These findings are concerning given that living with a mental illness can have a significant impact on a young person's life, the lives of his/her family members, the young person's community, and society more generally.4 Dia and Bradshaw reinforce that young people living with mental disorders create heavy burdens on society, explaining that as young people suffer with their own personal struggles, they engage in increased problem behaviours, have poor self-concept, experience poor academic success, as well as other various personal and interpersonal difficulties.5 Mental health issues in childhood and adolescence, particularly those that are unaddressed, can impact life course development and increase the risk for other mental health problems in adulthood. The economic impacts of mental illness affect the ability of both ill persons and their caregivers to be employed and therefore, personal income and livelihood, productivity in the workplace, and contributions to the national economy are impacted.4,6 Mental disorders cost national economies several billion dollars, both in terms of expenditures incurred and loss of productivity.6 Considering the impacts that mental illness has at both the individual level, in terms of quality of life, and the varied social and economic costs at the societal level, the United Nations General Assembly is advocating for the provision of equitable access to effective programs and health care interventions for young people.4Additionally, it is important to consider how the utilization of treatment and support services contributes to the economic impacts of mental illness.5 However, despite the fact that mental illness is the leading health problem faced by young people,7 it is estimated that fewer than 25% of young people in need of treatment receive those specialized services,7,8 and less than 7% receive a diagnosis by their doctor.9 Young peoples' mental health issues have not received the public policy attention warranted by recent epidemiological data, and mental health care continues to receive little in the way of public policy attention. Canadian Senator Michael Kirby, while speaking to the fact that mental health care is often referred to as the orphan of the health care system, referred to young peoples' mental health care as the “orphan child of the orphan child.”10 Given the treatment gap, the prevalence in young people, and the resulting distress, burden and long-term consequences of mental illness at the individual, family, and community level,7 there is a need to arrive at an increased understanding of the meanings young people assign to living with mental illness and their experiences in managing their health and lives. A synthesis of literature from multiple contexts of the meanings and experiences of young people living with mental illness will add to our understanding of young people's lived experiences. A qualitative systematic review would be of benefit to provide context for the development of new evidence-based mental health care interventions for young people and the delivery of those that currently exist. The overall aim is to advance the development of effective and timely mental health and social services that include patients' preferences and values, which may ultimately lead to improved mental health outcomes for young people. Literature searches were conducted in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO for existing systematic reviews on this topic. The searchesdid not reveal any previous or planned systematic reviews of qualitative evidence on the proposed research purpose and questions. While no reviews were located that specifically addressed the same research purpose and questions, one related systematic review was found that reported barriers and facilitators of mental health help-seeking in young people using both qualitative and quantitative research.11 This review was limited as it only focused on barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for mental health problems experienced by adolescents and young adults. Moreover, the search strategy was limited to three databases and the methodology of qualitative data synthesis was not the methodology of synthesis employed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,089
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: Protocole
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,089
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,469

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0890,094
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0160,015
Bibliométrie0,0220,016
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,005
Communication savante0,0080,010
Science ouverte0,0060,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0560,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,068
Tête enseignante GPT0,445
Écart entre enseignants0,378 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreProtocole

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetMental Health Treatment and AccessTravaux en français237 207