Safe spaces for youth mental health: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mental illness is a significant challenge during adolescence and youth period, posing a threat to individuals' mental health, well-being, and productivity. Despite the global burden, comprehensive evidence on the use of youth-safe spaces to improve their mental health has been limited. Therefore, this review aims to explore the existing literature on the role of safe spaces in shaping the mental health outcomes of youth. METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines. This review focused on individuals aged 10 to 25. It explores safe spaces for youth, including community centers, schools, clubs, and online forums, and their role in promoting youth mental health. We conducted a comprehensive search using PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. Study selection and screening were done using Covidence software, with two independent reviewers applying predefined criteria. We used the standardized table for data extraction; findings were presented using graphical and tabular formats alongside narrative synthesis. Reporting followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework. RESULTS: The review included 23 studies from various regions, notably North America (USA) and Europe. These studies found that safe spaces, primarily within schools, offered youth mental health support, resources, and guidance. Additionally, community organizations, outreach programs, and primary care clinics were identified as safe spaces to enhance the mental well-being of young adults. The interventions used in these safe spaces included cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness programs, and multi-component approaches. Positive outcomes included reduced posttraumatic stress disorders, anxiety, and substance use, along with improved mental well-being and interpersonal relationships. However, there needs to be more focus on methodological diversity and research in other regions. Geographic imbalances exist, and evidence beyond schools and communities as safe spaces is limited. Intersectional factors are often overlooked. CONCLUSION: This review emphasizes the significant impact of safe spaces on youth mental health. It suggests that fostering supportive environments within schools, recreational clubs, and communities can significantly benefit youth mental well-being. The findings highlight the need to expand safe space initiatives to address young people's challenges during their developmental stage.
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 | 0.019 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".