Identifying mechanisms of youth mental health promotion: A realist evaluation of the Agenda Gap programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting youth mental health is a critical public health priority and merits robust policy and practice responses, inclusive of youth-centred and upstream interventions that address the root factors contributing to mental health outcomes. To that end, non-familial youth-adult relationships can powerfully impact youths' healthy development, mental health and well-being, and capacities for enacting change within home, school, and policy contexts. Agenda Gap is a youth mental health promotion programme based on this principle, in which adult facilitators support youth (aged 15-24) in co-exploring activities focused on mental health promotion and policy advocacy, while fostering supportive, trusting intergenerational relationships. This study presents a realist evaluation of Agenda Gap, drawing on realist qualitative interviews with youth participants (n = 18) and adult collaborators (n = 4). We constructed 15 initial programme theories in four theoretical areas that we subsequently explored via analysis of the realist interview data. The analysis used the middle-range theories of 'Third Space' and 'Third Place' to conceptualize and articulate how causal mechanisms were produced from the non-familial youth-adult relationships that are foundational to the programme. Results are presented across 10 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in three sections: (1) Agenda Gap Facilitation Activates 'Third-Space/Third-Place' Mechanisms; (2) Youth Enhance Personal Mental Health while also Supporting Mental Health of Friends and Family; (3) Youth Become Inspired and Informed to Act as Advocates and Policy Change Agents. Taken together, these findings provide insights into the important mechanisms of non-familial intergenerational trust building and demonstrate how a strengths-based conceptualization of youth mental health supports mental health maintenance, promotion, and advocacy for this population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".