Identifying process and outcome indicators of successful transitions from child to adult mental health services: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of youth need to transition from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to adult mental health services (AMHS); however, the transition process is not well understood and often experienced poorly by youth. In the effort to design and evaluate standards of practice for transitions, there is a need to identify key elements of a successful transition. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify definitions of successful transitions from CAMHS to AMHS; and (2) identify indicators that have been used to measure CAMHS-AMHS transition care processes and quality, and outcomes. METHODS: We will search 8 electronic bibliographic databases from 1980 to 2016 (eg, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO), professional associations, policy documents, and other grey literature to identify relevant material. We will include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational studies, and non-research studies (guidelines, narrative reviews, policy documents) examining the transition from CAMHS to AMHS. 2 raters will independently screen each retrieved title and abstract for eligibility using the study inclusion criteria (level 1), and then will independently assess full-text articles to determine if these meet the inclusion criteria (level 2). Data extraction will be completed and results will be synthesised both quantitatively and qualitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of the scoping review will be used to develop a set of indicators that will be prioritised and evaluated in a Delphi consensus study. This will serve as a foundation for the development of the first instrument to assess the quality and success of CAMHS-AMHS transitions. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping study.
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 | 0.164 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.018 |
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".