Evidence of factors influencing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder in adolescents and young adults. Protocol for a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar Disorder (BD) is a complex psychiatric condition that typically manifests during late adolescence and early adulthood. Over the past two decades, international studies have reported that BD often goes unrecognized and untreated for several years, which can lead to negative clinical and functional outcomes. However, the components of delay in the diagnosis and treatment of BD and various factors influencing those components have not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVES: The scoping review described in this protocol aims to map the existing literature on potential factors that influence delays in the treatment of BD in adolescents and young adults, in order to identify the knowledge gaps and future research and policy priorities. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic scoping review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline (PRISMA-ScR). We will search the electronic databases of MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for peer-reviewed primary research articles published in academic journals. Grey literature will not be explored due to resource limitations. A conceptual framework based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment by Scott and colleagues was used as a foundation for our search and extraction strategy to ensure all components of delay and potential factors influencing each component are explored. Two independent reviewers will screen the references retrieved by the literature search and select relevant studies based on our inclusion criteria. The data from included studies will be synthesized into a narrative summary, and implications for future research, practice and policy will be discussed. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to explore the potential factors that influence delays in the treatment of BD in adolescents and young adults. We intend to disseminate the review results through academic conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.114 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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".