Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34018335›Full record

ArticleEarly intervention in psychiatry2022

Scoping review of stepped care interventions for mental health and substance use service delivery to youth and young adults.

Mai Berger, Saranee Fernando, AnnMarie Churchill, Peter Cornish, Joanna Henderson, Jai Shah, Karen Tee, Amy Salmon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Early intervention in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mai BergerCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6501-4759
Saranee FernandoCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9640-3685
AnnMarie ChurchillStudent Wellness and Counseling Centre, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Peter CornishDirector of Counseling and Psychological Services, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Joanna HendersonMargaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth and Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9387-5193
Jai ShahPrevention and Early Intervention Program for Psychosis (PEPP-Montreal), Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Karen TeeFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Amy SalmonCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsMany young people with mental health and/or substance use concerns do not have access to timely, appropriate, and effective services. Within this context, stepped care models (SCMs) have emerged as a guiding framework for care delivery, inspiring service innovations across the globe. However, substantial gaps remain in the evidence for SCMs as a strategy to address the current systemic challenges in delivering services for young people. This scoping review aims to identify where these gaps in evidence exist, and the next steps for addressing them.

methodsA scoping review was conducted involving both peer-reviewed and grey literature. Eligible studies explored SCMs implemented in the various health care settings accessed by young people aged 12-24 seeking treatment for mental health and substance use challenges. After screening titles and abstracts, two reviewers examined full-text articles and extracted data to create a descriptive summary of the models.

resultsOf the 656 studies that were retrieved, 51 studies were included and grouped by study team for a final yield of 43 studies. Almost half of the studies were focused on the adult population (i.e., 18 and over), and most did not specify interventions for young people. Among the SCMs, substantial variability was found in almost every aspect of the models.

conclusionsConsidering the current body of evidence, there is an urgent need for a consensus position on the definition, implementation, and outcome measures required for rigorously assessing the utility of SCMs for young people.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescentAdultChildDelivery of Health CareHumansMental HealthOutcome Assessment, Health CareYoung Adultcare deliveryservice transformationstepped care modelsyoung adult mental healthyouth mental health

Identifiers

PMID34018335
PMCPMC9292436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.