Development and implementation determinants of competency frameworks for mental health clinicians and service providers working with youth: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite high prevalence, access to mental healthcare for Canadian youth is limited, with less than 20% receiving adequate treatment. Marginalised and at-risk youth face particular challenges, including cultural misunderstandings, long wait times and negative care experiences. A competency framework for mental health clinicians working with youth can be a tool to increase the capacity of the health workforce to deliver culturally responsive care. This scoping review aims to comprehensively summarise the existing literature on competency frameworks for mental health clinicians and youth service providers, assessing how these frameworks align with culturally responsive care and examining their development, evaluation and implementation methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review protocol is guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines and registered with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EY7NF). The search strategy, developed with an Information Specialist, comprises a three-step process: preliminary searches in two databases, expansion of the search across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CENTRAL and dissertations and theses databases and examination of reference lists and hand-searching for additional sources. The search strategy was reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist. Eligible English language articles will be selected through title and abstract screening (level 1) and full-text review (level 2). The search dates are 18 July and 21 August 2023, as well as 19 January 2024. Data from eligible articles will be extracted in duplicate and independently using a data extraction form. The data will then be summarised descriptively and qualitatively using content analysis mapped to the four evidence-based conceptual frameworks and presented in a table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the scoping review involves gathering and describing existing literature, it is exempt from ethical approval requirements. The findings of this scoping review will be presented at relevant local and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings will also be disseminated and shared with professional organisations to enhance healthcare workforce capacity and drive systemic change. Furthermore, the findings will be used to inform doctoral work and future mental health and health education research related to underserved youth.
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 | 0.150 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.015 |
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".