“What is the efficacy of specialised early intervention in mental health targeting simultaneously adolescents and young adults?’’ An HTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Current service organization is not adapted for youth with or at risk of mental illness. Access, engagement and continuity of care are notorious challenges, particularly during transition from adolescence to adulthood, when youths are transferred to adult services. An HTA was initiated to evaluate the efficacy of programs for which admission is not a function of the legal age of majority. METHODS: A systematic review of systematic reviews identified literature published between 2000 and 2017 in 4 databases. To be selected, studies had to focus on specialised mental healthcare early intervention (EI) programs targeting both adolescents and young adults. Contextual and experiential data were collected through interviews with local leading experts. Article selection and quality assessment using ROBIS were conducted with inter rater agreement. The analytical framework developed includes 4 domains: access, engagement and continuity, recovery as well as meaningfulness and acceptability. RESULTS: 1841 references were identified. Following inclusion/exclusion criteria, 5 studies were selected, 3 of which focused on EI for psyschosis. EI programs alone do not seem to decrease duration of untreated psychosis. EI including a multi focus campaign were more successful. EI does, however, seem to decrease hospitalisation for psychosis. The experience of service users and professionals with inter agency collaboration and person-centred care models were analysed to identify facilitating and inhibiting implementation factors. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare policies need to support further research and development of EI where admission is not a function of the legal age of majority and diagnostic, particularly for youths at risk.
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 | 0.082 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".