ArticleChildren and youth services review2020
Assessing trustworthiness: Marginalized youth and the central relational paradox in treatment.
Article in Children and youth services review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supporting mental health conversations among youth with neurodevelopmental disorders through digital storytelling: A co-produced study.JCPP advances · 2026Article
- Housing First for Youth Who Experience Homelessness: A Systematic Review.Urban affairs review (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Article
- Help-seeking for young rural males disengaged from education.Australian journal of psychology · 2024Article
- Trauma in Context: an Integrative Treatment Model.Journal of child & adolescent trauma · 2022Article
- On the move: exploring Inuit and non-Inuit health service providers' perspectives about youth, family and community participation in care in Nunavik.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Marginalized youth are at elevated risk for mental health difficulties, yet they encounter numerous barriers to engagement with mental health services. Past negative experiences with family, social workers, and systems of care contribute to distrust of service providers and ambivalence about engaging in trusting relationships with adults. This longitudinal qualitative study explored how marginalized youth living with mental health conditions make decisions about trust in their relationships with helping professionals. Semi-structured, open-ended in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 young women living with a mood or anxiety disorder, exploring trust, mutuality, and disconnection in relationships between marginalized youth and helping professionals. Eleven of the participants also participated in a second interview, 3 months later, that explored participants' relationships with friends and family. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and interpreted through the lens of relational-cultural theory. Results indicated that the majority of interview participants described feeling unseen, judged, or invalidated in their relationships with family members. Four themes emerged as factors in the assessment of the trustworthiness of service providers: genuine caring; understanding; non-judgmental acceptance; and adult respect for youth agency. Concerns about confidentiality and mandated reporting informed participants' decisions about disclosure in these relationships. Analysis of findings reveals evidence of the central relational paradox in these descriptions of helping relationships, reflecting the simultaneous appeal and peril of vulnerability in relationships, especially relationships characterized by power differentials. Findings suggest that practitioners working with marginalized youth can expect both openness and guardedness in the treatment relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.