Mental health interventions for rural adolescents: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that less than half of adolescents in rural and remote communities receive the mental health support they need due to barriers including limited access to mental health services and care providers, poorer quality mental healthcare, higher transportation costs to services, and stigma. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify mental health interventions that have been implemented and evaluated in the literature specifically for rural adolescents between ages 10-19. A search of Medline was conducted. Of the 62 included studies, a majority were located in high income countries, focused on problematic substance use, were delivered in schools and through tele-health. The results suggest that while there have been diverse efforts to develop mental health interventions in this population, there are limited efforts to bring more specialized mental health services directly to rural communities, and rather a reliance on task shifting and tele-health for these needs. Finally, there is a need for more intervention research targeting high burden disorders among adolescents like anxiety and mood disorders, and more support for intervention activities in low and middle income countries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".