Exploring family based immigrant youth substance use prevention programmes: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Canada has one of the highest rates of problematic opiate and alcohol use in the world. Globally, Canada was the second country that legalized marijuana for non-medical use. As Canada is an immigrant-receiving country, newcomers and immigrants contend with a substance use landscape that was likely absent in their countries of origin. Although immigrants have lower rates of substance use than the host population, the risk of substance use, especially among youth, increases with acculturation and peer pressure. While parents are best placed to mitigate the risks for substance use among their youth, immigrant parents often do not have the knowledge and skills to do so. Therefore, culturally adaptable family based interventions need be explored to build immigrant parents' capacities to mitigate substance use risks. AIM AND PURPOSE: The aim of this scoping review is to explore family based substance use prevention interventions for immigrant youth, which will be guided by two questions:What is known about family based interventions for preventing immigrant adolescents' substance use?What are the features and study results of these intervention protocols? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will apply Arksey and O'Malley's procedure for reporting scoping review and report study findings based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews. DISCUSSION: We hope that the knowledge translation emanating from this review will increase immigrant parents' knowledge of substance use and enable them to effectively intervene to prevent substance use among their youth. We also hope that this work can inform policy development on best practices for substance use prevention and for the creation of culturally sensitive programmes and services for immigrant youth.
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 | 0.097 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.014 |
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".