Scoping review on mental health standards for Black youth: identifying gaps and promoting equity in community, primary care, and educational settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth mental health is a growing concern in research, practice, and policy. Practice standards, guidelines, or strategies provide an invisible infrastructure that fosters equity, quality, and safety, potentially addressing inconsistencies and more effectively attending to the mental wellness of Black youth as a particular population of concern. This scoping review aimed to address the following question: What standards exist for the delivery of mental health services to Black youth in community, primary care, and educational settings? Due to a limited initial search yield on publications about standards for the delivery of mental health services for Black youth population, our goal was then to identify and map mental health standards, recommendations, or guidelines for the delivery of mental health services using the same settings to all youth. METHODS: Searches were conducted in various databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, Gender Studies Database, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Screening was independently conducted by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third. Information extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Out of the 2,701 screened publications, 54 were included in this scoping review. Among them, 38.9% were published between 2020 and 2023, with 40.7% originating from the United States of America, 20.4% from the United Kingdom, and 13% from Canada. Concerning the settings, 25.9% of the publications focused on primary care, 24.1% on health care services, 20.4% on educational settings, and 3.7% on the community. Additionally, 25.9% were classified as general because recommendations were applicable to various settings. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (11.1%) was the most frequently considered specific condition, followed by autism spectrum disorder (9.3%) and depression (9.3%). However, 31.5% of the included references addressed mental health in general. Only three references provided specific recommendations for the Black population. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations, guidelines, or standards for Black youth mental health services in community, primary care, or educational settings are scarce and limited to North American countries. This scoping review emphasizes the need to consider ethnicity when developing guidelines or standards to improve racial equity and reduce disparities in access to mental health services.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.054 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".