Mental health treatment and access for emerging adults in Canada: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research into the mental healthcare of emerging adults (18-25) in Canada has been limited, despite this developmental period being widely considered a vulnerable time of life. As such, we aimed to identify the greatest barriers emerging adults faced in accessing mental healthcare in Canada, particularly in relation to the Canadian healthcare system which operates on a universal funding model but is challenged by funding shortfalls and a complex relationship to the provinces. Methods: We systematically examined 28 pieces of literature, including academic and technical literature and publications from government organizations, focused on emerging adults and the Canadian mental healthcare system. Results: Findings demonstrated that stigma, a lack of mental health knowledge, cost, and interpersonal factors (e.g., one's parental, peer, and romantic supports demonstrating negative views toward mental healthcare may deter treatment; emerging adults demonstrating concerns that accessing mental healthcare may lead to peer rejection) acted as barriers to help-seeking in emerging adults. Additionally, a lack of national institutional cohesion and a lack of policy pertaining to emerging adult healthcare acted as barriers to adequate mental healthcare in this demographic. Discussion: Improving mental health education early in life shows promise at reducing many of the barriers emerging adults face in accessing mental healthcare. Further, policies directed at ensuring a cohesive national mental health system, as well as policies directly designed to care for emerging adult mental health needs, could act as the next steps toward ensuring an accessible and effective Canadian mental healthcare system that can serve as a model for other nations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".