MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263850781 · doi:10.1111/cch.12306

A scoping review of evaluated interventions addressing developmental transitions for youth with mental health disorders

2015· review· en· W2263850781 on OpenAlexafffund
Briano Di Rezze, Tram Nguyen, Gillian Mulvale, Neil G. Barr, Christopher J. Longo, Glen E. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation
FundersOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthGovernment of OntarioOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionPsycINFOMental healthPsychologyMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)GerontologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Youth with mental health disorders often experience challenges when transitioning into adult roles (e.g. independent living, work and community engagement). Health interventions that address the needs of youth with mental health disorders during these challenges in their development (i.e. developmental transitions) have not been reviewed in the literature. This scoping review examines the peer-reviewed research that describes evaluated interventions addressing developmental transitions for youth with mental health disorders. METHODS: A search of four prominent health literature databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) was conducted to identify evaluated developmental transition interventions for adolescents and youth (12-25 years) with mental health disorders. Study selection and analysis were guided by a methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. Selected studies were described, assessed for quality and collated based on ten dimensions from two notable conceptual frameworks in developmental transitions and disability. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The interventions within these studies demonstrated five specialized and four multi-faceted programmes (i.e. multiple domains). All domains from the two conceptual frameworks were represented differently across studies. The sub-domains from these studies were most frequently related to vocational-focused interventions, least frequently related to social activities and living situation and did not explicitly map onto the sexuality sub-domain. Three multi-faceted interventions incorporated all domains and utilized each intervention approach. Study quality was rated for seven of the nine studies. Quantitative methodology for five of the seven studies was rated as higher quality. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluated interventions described in the transitions literature for youth with mental health disorders predominantly focus on vocational needs. The least studied areas were the personal and interpersonal domains. These domains were only incorporated within interventions addressing multiple domains of developmental transitions. These insights can be helpful in guiding evidence-based practice and policy development, as well as informing gaps for future research 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0300.029
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.379
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207