Home-based and community-based activities that can improve mental wellness: a protocol for an umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mental disorders affect about 13% of the world's population. While evidence-based mental health treatments are available, a significant number of persons with mental illnesses are untreated or do not receive adequate mental healthcare due to various reasons, including costs, stigma and the desire to self-manage symptoms. In the past few years, there has been an increase in the body of evidence regarding leisure activities and mental wellness. However, there is currently no published overview of the state of the evidence on these activities and their potential preventive and therapeutic effects on mental health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) review guidelines, an umbrella review will be undertaken to synthesise findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the mental health benefits of home-based and community-based activities. MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports will be searched for potentially relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 1991 to present. Title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will each be performed independently by two reviewers. A third review author will be available to resolve discrepancies in any of the review tasks. To assess the quality of potentially eligible reviews, the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses will be used. Findings will be presented in table form and will be summarised by study population, type of home-based or community-based activity or intervention, and type of mental health outcomes. Overall assessment of the strength of existing evidence from eligible systematic reviews will be provided following the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. Results of this umbrella review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021266989.
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 | 0.117 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.019 |
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".