Goal‐oriented practices in youth mental health and wellbeing settings: A scoping review and thematic analysis of empirical evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Goal-oriented practices involve practitioners working collaboratively with clients to identify, develop and focus on objectives for the therapeutic work. It has been suggested that the key mechanism underpinning goal-oriented practices with young people is the development of epistemic trust via the foundation of open communication, along with shared decision-making: including young people in decisions about their care. However, goal-oriented work in practice is variable in scope and content, with no research consensus on what it entails, the mechanisms of change and reported outcomes. METHOD: This research aims to map the extent, range and nature of the evidence-base for goal-oriented practices, including gaps, through a synthesis of the available empirical evidence from the past 20 years. A scoping review of 9783 studies published from 2003 onwards was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 116 studies were identified for inclusion in the review, focusing on goal-oriented practices specifically related to the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people aged 0-18 (including caregivers as relevant). Alongside presentation of the key elements of the included studies, three themes were developed relating to the features of mental health and wellbeing goal-oriented practice in the contexts of the studies: Conceptual and Empirical Constructs of Goal-Oriented Practices, Quality and Making 'Good' Goals, and The Socio-Cultural Contexts of Goal-Oriented Practice. CONCLUSION: Several areas for future research are identified that will build on this evidence, and further understanding in this area. Work towards the development of best practice principles will move practice towards transparency in the understanding and delivery of goal-oriented practices.
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 | 0.077 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".