Interventions to reduce stigma towards mental disorders in young people: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The stigma towards mental disorders can limit the use and effectiveness of available mental health interventions for young people. We aim to systematically review effectiveness of interventions to reduce stigma towards mental disorders in young people, as evidence has not been recently and systematically synthesised on this topic. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised or controlled clinical trials of interventions to reduce stigma towards mental disorders in people aged 10–24 years. Studies involving a comparison group, post intervention and/or follow-up assessments of knowledge, attitudes and/or behaviours towards mental disorders (including help-seeking behaviours), will be included. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PubMed and PsycINFO databases will be searched, without time limits, for eligible studies in English or Spanish, and with results available. Databases will be searched from July 2020 to April 2021. The study selection process, the data extraction and the critical evaluation—with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool—of included studies will be performed independently and in duplicate by teams of reviewers, with the assistance of a third party, until reaching a high degree of agreement. In the presence of substantial heterogeneity (I 2 >75%), a narrative synthesis of the study results will be used. If feasible, we will also conduct a quality effects model for the statistical synthesis of results. If sufficient data are available, subgroup analyses will be performed to assess potential sources of heterogeneity. Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori index will be used to assess publication bias. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the confidence in the evidence reviewed. Ethics and dissemination Results are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field of adolescent and/or youth mental health. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020210901.
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 | 0.088 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.010 |
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".