A scoping review of evaluated interventions addressing developmental transitions for youth with mental health disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".