Community-based programs for youth with mental health conditions: a scoping review and practical implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Approximately 14% of all adolescents globally cope with mental health conditions. However, community-based psychosocial services for adolescents with mental health conditions are scarce and under-researched. Scant scholarly attention has been paid to leisure and/or social activities in community-based rehabilitation services for adolescents with mental health conditions. Objectives: To begin to fill this gap, we chose a bottom-up framework to probe the following questions: Which community-based programs for adolescents with mental health conditions exist worldwide? What common characteristics do they present? What is their range of services? Method: We systematically searched three leading academic databases, reference lists, and worldwide websites in English. Eligibility criteria: Programs with information in English that provide services in a community setting, service content that includes leisure and/or social activities, cater to users aged 10-18, and content explicitly targets adolescents with mental health conditions. Results: Twenty-seven psychosocial programs that provide leisure and/or social activities and encourage the promotion of adolescent mental health in the community were identified. We mapped and categorized the programs into three groups: integrated recovery, leisure recovery, and advocacy recovery. Conclusion: Practical implications for implementation are suggested based on the findings. Specifically, service providers should attend to the psychological needs of adolescents by prioritizing peer interaction and offering suitable social and leisure activities. These activities can also boost adolescent participation in community-based rehabilitation programs and address the treatment gap. Comprehensive studies and uniform terminology in the field are needed.
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 | 0.026 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".