An emerging framework for digital mental health design with Indigenous young people: a scoping review of the involvement of Indigenous young people in the design and evaluation of digital mental health interventions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Indigenous young people worldwide possess unique protective factors that support wellbeing. However, they experience mental illness at higher rates than their non-indigenous counterparts. Digital mental health (dMH) resources can increase access to structured, timely, and culturally tailored mental health interventions by reducing structural and attitudinal barriers to accessing treatment. The involvement of Indigenous young people in dMH resource development is recommended, however, no guidelines exist on how this can best be facilitated. METHODS: A scoping review examining processes to involve Indigenous young people in developing or evaluating dMH interventions was conducted. Studies reported between 1990 and 2023 involving Indigenous young people aged 12-24 years, originating from Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and Australia, in the development or evaluation of dMH interventions were eligible for inclusion. Following a three-step search process, four electronic databases were searched. Data were extracted, synthesized, and described under three categories: dMH intervention attributes, study design, and alignment with research best practice. Best practice recommendations for Indigenous research and participatory design principles derived from the literature were identified and synthesised. Included studies were assessed against these recommendations. Consultation with two Senior Indigenous Research Officers ensured Indigenous worldviews informed analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies describing eleven dMH interventions met inclusion criteria. Studies included formative, design, pilot, and efficacy studies. Overall, most included studies demonstrated a high degree of Indigenous governance, capacity building, and community benefit. All studies adapted their research processes to ensure that local community protocols were followed and most aligned these within an Indigenous research paradigm. Formal agreements regarding existing and created intellectual property and implementation evaluations were rare. Outcomes were the primary focus of reporting, with limited detailed descriptions of governance and decision-making processes or strategies for managing predictable tensions between co-design stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified recommendations for undertaking participatory design with Indigenous young people and evaluated the current literature against these criteria. Common gaps were evident in the reporting of study processes. Consistent, in-depth reporting is needed to allow assessment of approaches for this hard-to-reach population. An emergent framework, informed by our findings, for guiding the involvement of Indigenous young people in the design and evaluation of dMH tools is presented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Available via osf.io/2nkc6.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».