Needs of parents and carers of children and young people with mental health difficulties: protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Having a child or young person (CYP) with mental health problems can be highly distressing for parents/carers. The impact can include parental/carer depression, anxiety, lost productivity and poor family relationships. Currently, there is no synthesis of this evidence, which is needed to provide clarity around what support parents/carers may need, to meet the needs of family mental health. This review aims to identify the needs of the parents/carers of CYP who are receiving mental health services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted to identify potentially relevant studies that provide evidence concerning the needs and impact on parents/carers linked to their CYP having mental health difficulties. CYP mental health conditions included are anxiety disorders, depression, psychoses, oppositional defiant and other externalising disorders, labels of emerging personality disorders, eating disorders and attention deficit (hyperactive) disorders. The following databases were searched on November 2022 with no date restriction applied: Medline; PsycINFO; CINAHL; AMED; EMBASE; Web of Science; Cochrane Library; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; Social Policy and Practice; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; and Open Grey. Only studies reported in English will be included. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for qualitative studies and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for quantitative studies. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically and inductively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review was approved by the ethical committee at Coventry University, UK, reference number P139611. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated across various key stakeholders and published in peer-reviewed journals.
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 | 0.086 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.009 |
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".