“Youth as accessories”: Stakeholder Perspectives on Youth Participation in Mental Health Policymaking [Part II]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To elicit stakeholder perspectives on the findings from our scoping review on youth participation in mental health policymaking, we conducted a global consultation with young people and adults directly involved in mental health policymaking. METHOD: Forty-four stakeholders from 16 countries, including 15 young people, 9 policymakers and 20 facilitators of youth participation, took part in individual interviews and/or focus groups. They were asked about how the review findings contrasted with their own experiences in mental health policymaking. The transcribed data were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: All participants viewed lived experience as valuable in identifying policy gaps. Youth pointed out that children and youth with disabilities, diverse sexual orientations, and/or gender identities were often excluded, and spoke about feelings of being an "accessory", illustrating a lack of power-sharing in a tokenized policymaking process. Adult participants' accounts highlighted the challenges inherent in policymaking such as the need for political knowledge and institutional time constraints. A range of cultural, socio-economic, and political barriers to youth participation, that were often context-specific, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The diverse perspectives of stakeholders extended the review results. Based on our findings, we recommend that adults and institutions: (1) recognize lived experience as expertise in shaping mental health policies; (2) include diverse groups; (3) reduce tokenistic relationships through the creation of safer spaces, adult feedback, co-production, and social accountability; and (4) adopt an intersectional approach to address cultural, socio-economic, and political barriers to participation. Methodologically, our work demonstrates why stakeholder consultations are an essential component of scoping reviews.
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 | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".