Perspectives of young people who access support for mental health in primary care: a systematic review of their experiences and needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for mental health support in primary care, especially for young people. To improve mental health support for young people in general practice, the needs of young people must be considered. AIM: To explore the experiences of young people (aged 12-25 years) on receiving mental health care in primary care and identify the needs of young people who present with mental health concerns. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. METHOD: This was a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Six databases were searched for literature relating to young people's experiences of receiving mental health care in primary care. Additional handsearching and manual internet searching were conducted. Narrative synthesis was employed. RESULTS: Five papers and a further two reports from manual internet searching were found, resulting in the inclusion of 1823 young people from four different countries (UK, US, Ireland, and Canada) for synthesis. The synthesis generated four themes: the centrality of a trusting relationship; showing empathy and taking concerns seriously; being given time to talk; and barriers to accessing mental health support in primary care. CONCLUSION: Young people need a trusting relationship to discuss sensitive issues. To enable high-quality and effective mental health consultations with young people and the development of trust, GPs require unhurried consultations and the ability to maintain continuity of care.
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 | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".