MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294794267 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2022.904586

Mental health problems among adolescents and young adults with childhood-onset physical disabilities: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4294794267 on OpenAlexafffund
Shalini Lal, Stéphanie Tremblay, Danielle Joanna Starcevic, Melina Mauger-Lavigne, Dana Anaby

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMental healthCINAHLPsycINFOPsychiatryAnxietyPsychologyMEDLINEMedicinePopulationClinical psychologyPsychological interventionGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This scoping review aims to better understand the extent and nature of research activity on the topic of mental health problems in young people with childhood-onset physical disabilities. Specifically, we document what has been investigated in terms of the occurrence and experience of mental health problems among young people with childhood-onset physical disabilities, and their access to mental health services. Methods: We searched four databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase) for articles published between 2007 and 2019. Studies were included if they addressed: (1) young people between the ages of 13 and 24 with a childhood-onset physical disability, and (2) mental health assessment, treatment, or service access and use. Results: We identified 33 peer-reviewed studies that focused mainly on young people with cerebral palsy, juvenile arthritis, and spina bifida. The most common mental health problems investigated were depression and mood related difficulties (73%), anxiety (39%), and social/behavioural issues (33%) and the most common age range was 13 to 17. Ten studies explored access, use, and experiences of mental health services; stigma; caregiver mental health; and value for comprehensive care, using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Conclusions: Findings suggest the importance of developing integrated models of service delivery to identify and address the mental health needs of this population, and consensus on best practices for assessment and reporting rates of subclinical symptoms and psychiatric conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207