Implementation of evidence-based group interventions in a community-based mental health service for self-harming and suicidal youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Suicide and self-harm have significant health, economic and social costs. Group-based interventions can be an effective and advantageous treatment approach; however, there is little evidence on the application of these groups in youth community mental health settings in Australia. Using the RE-AIM framework, we explore the feasibility and implementation of two group programmes in a youth-focussed community-based mental health service: dialectical behaviour therapy-adolescent (DBT-A) and cognitive behavioural Self and Strength (S&S).Method Data were collected from an Australian community mental health service that implemented two group therapy treatments over 12 months. RE-AIM implementation framework outcomes included programme reach (patient flow, group uptake, treatment completion), effectiveness (youth and care clinical outcomes), adoption (staff perception), implementation (barriers), and maintenance (service commitment and acceptability).Results Groups were considered for all eligible clients (61% of referrals), of these 36% accepted treatment and of those who commenced, 71% completed DBT-A and 82% completed S&S. DBT-A participants reported improved suicidality, emotion dysregulation, self-harm and quality of life (QoL). S&S participants reported improved QoL. Despite small sample size, treatment was acceptable to participants, with high retention and adherence across both groups. Clinicians involved in facilitation noted positive clinical impacts.Conclusions Group-based interventions have the potential to reduce emotion dysregulation difficulties for youth. Understanding barriers to uptake of group programmes in community-based mental health settings is essential to improve the reach and implementation of group programmes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".