Barriers and Facilitators to Accessing Mental Healthcare in Canada for Black Youth: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is evidence to suggest that Black children and youth in Canada face disproportionate challenges in accessing mental healthcare. Thus, the objective of this scoping review was to map current literature on the barriers and facilitators to care for Black youth in Canada. Both academic articles and gray literature published between January 2005 until May 2019 were reviewed. Six databases were searched for relevant academic articles: CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, EBSCOhost, Social Science Citation Index, and Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts. Gray literature was sourced from community recommendations and Google. Thirty-three (33) sources met the inclusion criteria. Data were coded and analyzed using a thematic analysis framework. Barriers to care for Black youth were identified and occurred at multiple levels of society including systemic (i.e., wait times, poor access to practitioners, geographical challenges and financial barriers to care), practitioner-related (i.e., racism and discrimination from providers, the inability to provide culturally competent care and a lack of organizational support) and personal and community-related barriers (i.e., internalized stigma and stigma from community). Support from family and friends, as well as a good relationship with providers, were noted as facilitators. The findings of this review suggest that Black children and youth face many barriers to accessing the Canadian mental healthcare system despite its purported universality. An increase in funding, expansion of the universal healthcare system to include mental health, and concerted effort on delivering culturally competent care are requisite to facilitate access to care for this population. Further research should focus on Black youth, be rooted in community-based research, and explore intersecting identities in the context of mental illness.
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 | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".