Mental Health Resource Accessibility Among Youth Convicted of an Offence in Canada and the United States: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basis for long-term mental health, well-being and resilience is developed during childhood and adolescence. Youth aged 16-24 experience a multitude of challenges when accessing mental health resources due to their limited autonomy at that age, namely access to the transportation needed to attend in-person resources, access to the internet or technology needed for virtual resources, and familial and community values that may create stigma. Within the youth population, mental health diagnoses are significantly more prevalent among youth convicted of an offence. There is an unequivocal lack of research to review these population-specific barriers and facilitators to mental health resources from the perspectives of youth convicted of an offence, and it is paramount that we consider their impact on access, as a population most affected by this inaccessibility. This scoping review aims to explore and summarize what is currently known about the barriers that youth convicted of an offence face when accessing mental health resources in Canada and the United States, and how these resources can be implemented to provide more equitable access for this population. The reviewed literature identified several key barriers, including: lack of information and misinformation; communication and collaboration; financial challenges; adverse social, peer and familial influences; medical mistrust; limited services; lack of transitional support; racial, ethnic and gender bias; and the institution of juvenile detention. Facilitators to mental health resource access were discussed, such as integrated and individualized care, provider accountability, cultural competency, rehabilitation as a primary goal, adaptive options to access, and building social, peer and familial support. The results of this review have important implications for making mental health resources more accessible to youth and improving the conditions and outcomes of juvenile conviction. This review also highlights the need for more Canadian research on access to mental health resources for youth convicted of an offence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".