Peer Support for Youth with Mental Health Concerns: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short title of the paper … Introduction: Peer support has increasingly been integrated into youth mental health programs globally. Peer support workers are an important ally in an individual’s recovery journey, providing both emotional and instrumental support and advocacy through their lived experiences. Objectives: To conduct a scoping review examining peer support services for youth with mental health concerns. Methods: This scoping review was prospectively registered with The Open Science Framework and followed the PRISMA scoping review extension checklist. In consultation with a health services librarian, seven electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, SocINDEX, ERIC, CINHAL, and Education Research Complete) were searched from inception to May 2023. Two blinded reviewers chose peer-reviewed studies for inclusion in this scoping review if the research examined youth with mental health concerns that were involved in a peer support intervention or program. Results: After duplicate references were removed, 4,001 titles and abstracts were screened. In total, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. A total 11147 youth (mean age 19.5 years) were identified as receiving peer support. About half the studies examined peer support service or program only (34/70; 49%). In others, peer support was examined alongside elements such as group therapy (29/70; 41%), goal setting (5/70; 7%), and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (5/70; 7%). Peer support services were identified as being significantly effective in treating mental health concerns in 81% (57/70) of studies. Conclusion: This scoping review demonstrated the ability of peer support services in aiding young people with mental health needs. Offering peer support may help mitigate future mental health problems in adulthood and increase quality of life.
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 | 0.023 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, 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".