Protective or Resilience Factors to Promote Mental Health among Indigenous Youth in Canada: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction: Many mental health concerns emerge in adolescence and young adulthood, making this a critical period to initiate early interventions for mental health promotion and illness prevention. Although Indigenous young people in Canada are at a higher risk of mental health outcomes and faced with limited access to appropriate care and resources, they have unique strengths and resiliency factors that promote mental health and wellness. Among Indigenous peoples, resilience is considered a healing process and cultural interventions for mental health promotion show particular promise among this group. As such, there is a need for innovative mental health interventions for Indigenous youth that transcend the Western biomedical model, use a strengths-based approach, and account for the cultural practices and belief systems of Indigenous peoples. This scoping review aims to explore the resilience and/or protective factors that promote mental health for Indigenous youth in present-day Canada. The findings from this scoping review will identify different levels of resilience and/or protective factors that can be used to design interventions for this population. Methods and Analysis: The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and Arksey and O’Malley framework for conducting scoping reviews. The reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and guidelines. We will include both published and unpublished grey literature and search the following databases: PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center and Embase. Further, we will use government and relevant Indigenous organization websites. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles and extract the data. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical approval is required for this study. We will share the results through conference presentations and an open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A lay-language report will be created and disseminated to community organizations that work with Indigenous 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 | 0.069 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 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".