Essential components of integrated care for youth with mental health and addiction needs: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Efforts to move towards integrated care have been met with increased interest and enthusiasm in recent years given the potential to improve care and population health while containing costs. However, there is a need to better understand community-based integrated care approaches for youth with mental health and/or addiction concerns to guide future implementation efforts and develop a set of standards for key components. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the populations, settings, service providers, interventions, infrastructure and care coordination methods that have been included in integrated care for youth with mental health and/or addiction needs and (2) identify constructs that have been measured and evaluated (eg, outcomes, engagement) in the context of youth integrated care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Seven electronic databases and several grey literature sources will be searched for material from 2001 to 2016. Inclusion criteria will be broad with respect to type of work, as we will include all types of research studies as well as non-research studies that provide information relevant to characteristics and constructs measured in the context of integrated care for youth mental health. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened for eligibility by two raters using inclusion criteria. Full-text articles will then be accessed and independently screened for inclusion. A formal data extraction method will be employed, enabling synthesis of results in quantitative and qualitative formats. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be widely disseminated to various stakeholders to inform implementation and research efforts. Findings will also launch a Delphi method study leading to the development of an assessment tool for youth mental health services integration. This review does not require ethics approval.
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 | 0.106 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 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".