Review: Patient engagement in child, adolescent, and youth mental health care research – a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth and children's lived experiences are rarely considered in studies seeking to improve or evaluate their mental health care. We conducted a scoping review to identify approaches to child, adolescent, and youth engagement in mental health studies as well as study-reported barriers, constraints, and facilitators to engagement. METHOD: We systematically searched six electronic databases for literature. We included studies of mental health care service design, development, or evaluation that involved engagement of children, adolescents, and/or youth with mental disorders or who intentionally self-harm. Studies could be of any design as long as patient engagement was used at any point during its design and/or conduct. Engagement could include co-designing health services/interventions and/or participating as a co-researcher. We assessed the reporting of patient engagement using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 Long-Form (GRIPP2-LF) checklist and used the Experience Based Co-design (EBCD) framework to guide data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen articles were included in the review. Most studies used engagement to develop or adapt a mental health service (75%) and utilized a participatory or co-design approach (69%). Participants were namely adolescents and youth (aged 10-24 years) with some studies including young adults (up to 29 years old). Most studies followed less than 50% of the EBCD framework, and the commonly reported study barriers were related to aspects addressed in EBCD: time restrictions, recruitment, and generalizability. Frequently reported study facilitators included study methodology, youth engagement, and having a diverse participant sample. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review suggest that the EBCD framework is not commonly used to guide patient engagement in studies of mental health care services. Future initiatives should consider following the framework to ensure meaningful evaluation and improvements to youth and children's mental health care 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 | 0.022 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".