Mental health outcomes of adjudicated males and females: the aftermath of juvenile delinquency and problem behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence indicates that the rates of mental health problems and disorders are relatively high among adjudicated youths, especially females, yet few longitudinal studies have focused on gender differences regarding their mental health outcomes as adults. AIMS: The present study was designed to assess the prevalence rates of self-reported suicide attempts and psychological help-seeking in young adults adjudicated for antisocial behaviours in adolescence. This study also assessed gender differences in the prevalence rates of mental health problems and disorders reported by participants. METHODS: Structured interviews assessing personal and social adaptation were conducted on three occasions with 292 adjudicated male and 113 female youths (mean age 15 years on the first occasion). Data from the third testing wave (mean age 23.51 at T3) provide information on their mental health outcomes in adulthood. RESULTS: Results indicate that in individuals with a history of juvenile delinquency and/or problem behaviour over 10% of the males and 20% of the females reported suicide attempts, and one-fifth and one-third respectively reported psychological consultation. Similar and lower proportions reported psychiatric hospitalization and/or drug addiction programme/therapy at the beginning of adulthood. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The present study suggests that these youths may need more mental health directed interventions in their assessment rehabilitation programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".