Navigating inequities in the delivery of youth mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives of youth, families, and service providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There have been concerns about the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian youth (aged 16-24) as they have the highest rates of mental health concerns. The objectives of the present study were to explore the experiences of youth with mental health and/or addiction concerns and their families during the pandemic, and to examine how adequate and equitable mental health services have been for youth and families from the perspectives of youth, parents, and service providers. METHODS: Using a descriptive qualitative research design and a university-community partnership, we conducted individual interviews with youth, parents, and service providers. The study involved a total of 25 participants (n=15 service users, n=10 service providers). Among the service users, 11 participants were parents and four were youth. We used thematic analysis to analyze interview data. RESULTS: The thematic analysis identified three themes in the data: (1) youth mental health concerns have increased, whereas supports have decreased, (2) families end up being the treatment team with increased burden, little support, and lack of recognition, and (3) inadequate and inequitable mental health services for youth and families are amplified during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: At a time when mental health needs were higher, the mental health care system offered less support to youth and their families. For a more equitable response to the pandemic, we need an accessible and integrated mental health care system that shows a commitment to addressing social determinants and reducing health disparities and inequities in access to mental health services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".