Resilience and Protective Factors for Mental Health among Indigenous Youth in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indigenous youth’s inherent strength and resilience play a vital role in their well-being and mental health. Protective factors, closely linked to resilience, spanning individual, family, and community levels reinforce positive mental health outcomes. The purpose of the present scoping review was to summarize the available literature that describes resilience and/or protective factors promoting mental health and well-being among Indigenous youth in Canada. As a secondary objective, this review investigated community involvement reported in the identified sources. JBI scoping review methodology was followed, and the search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Scopus commenced in August 2021, and was updated in February 2023. A targeted Google search was also conducted to identify eligible grey literature. A total of 61 papers were included in data extraction. The types of sources identified were observational (n=22), participatory action research (n=11), mixed/multi-methods (n=10), qualitative (n=9), case study (n=4), quasi-experimental (n=1), experimental (=1), and other designs such as quality improvement and program evaluation (n=3). Additionally, only a handful of included studies reported use of an Indigenous-specific approach, such as Two-Eyed seeing. Protective and resilience factors were identified across various levels such as individual (n=52), interpersonal (n=37), and wider environmental beyond social systems (n=37) levels. Forty studies described community involvement, which included non-specified community members, like friends or citizens (n=21), youth (n=19), Indigenous community members such as leaders and workers (n=14), and Elders (n=11). These groups were engaged to varying degrees, functioning either as equal collaborators, consultants, or, in some instances, as decision-makers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".