MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416301150 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1665975

Universal digital mental health interventions for children and youth: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4416301150 on OpenAlexafffund
Kaitlin Di Pierdomenico, Oana Bucsea, Haleh Hashemi, Arianna Leguia, Anne Lovegrove, Robert A. Cribbie, Rebecca Pillai Riddell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersJackman Humanities Institute, University of Toronto
KeywordsPsychological interventionMental healthDigital healthIntervention (counseling)mHealthHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are increasingly used to support child and youth mental health, yet the scope and characteristics of universal (Tier 1) DMHIs remain poorly defined. Methods: This scoping review synthesized peer- reviewed studies of universal DMHIs delivered to children and youth aged 0-18 years. Results: Use of online programs and hybrid delivery were prevalent. Many programs used an independent structure, while facilitation varied across self- led, facilitator-led, and both-led models. Outcomes were commonly assessed across multiple domains, including emotional, behavioural, social, and cognitive outcomes. When single domains were examined, these most often focused on emotional outcomes such as anxiety and depression. Interventions frequently employed therapeutic approaches such as cognitive behavioural therapy and psychoeducation, with content emphasizing emotion regulation, coping and problem-solving skills, and mental health literacy. Structural features varied in length and number of sessions, and many included scaffolded self-managed elements such as messaging or check-ins. Early childhood was underrepresented, with limited reporting of child outcomes for ages 0-4. Equity considerations were also limited, as many studies did not report race or ethnicity and sex and gender reporting was often binary or unspecified. Youth involvement in intervention design or consultation was uncommon. Discussion: This review provides an overview of the current landscape and identifies key gaps, including limited equity considerations, the underrepresentation of early childhood development, and minimal youth involvement. Clearer reporting of delivery structure and facilitation, stronger demographic reporting, and component-focused evaluation can support equitable, developmentally responsive scale-up. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-9-0026/, INPLASY202490026.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207