Youth friendliness in mental health and addiction services: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To better reach youth in need of mental health and addiction (MHA) services, there is increasing emphasis on making MHA services 'youth friendly.' However, it is unclear what youth friendliness means on a practical level. This scoping review explores (1) how youth friendliness in mental health services is defined in the literature, (2) what characteristics make MHA services youth friendly and (3) how youth friendliness is expected to impact service use by young people. METHODS: A search will be conducted of eight electronic bibliographic databases over the last 15 years (2002-2017) to identify literature on youth friendliness consistent with the modern youth experience. Grey literature will also be searched. The search and literature selection process will include all study designs, as well as non-research literature. Two independent raters will determine eligibility based on a review of the titles and abstracts of the identified literature, followed by full text reviews when required. Data will be extracted from the identified literature and then synthesised using qualitative and quantitative approaches. As a final step, we will conduct stakeholder consultations with youth, family members and service provider groups to validate the findings and identify any characteristics of youth friendliness that they deem important that were not reported in the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, as well as international, national and local conference presentations. Agency reports will be developed to present the findings in a user-friendly format, including a youth-friendliness checklist for youth-serving organisations. Research ethics approval has been obtained for the consultation component of this 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 | 0.107 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.020 |
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".