ArticleBMC health services research2026
Patient-centered access to mental health care at selected life-course stages: a scoping review using the Levesque framework.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Levesque patient-centered access framework links five service dimensions with five corresponding population abilities, from recognizing need to engaging with care. We synthesized its substantive applications to mental-health access among pregnant and postpartum people, children and adolescents aged 0-17 years, and adults aged 65 years or older.
methodsWe conducted a framework-guided scoping review with descriptive evidence mapping and narrative synthesis. Four Elicit reports supported semantic retrieval, preliminary screening, and draft extraction; PubMed and Web of Science searches supplemented identification through 1 August 2026. One reviewer determined eligibility, evidence roles, and framework coding; a second independently checked extracted data against full texts. Two reviewers independently appraised empirical studies and reviews using MMAT 2018 and the JBI review checklist. Direct population-specific evidence was distinguished from adjacent and contextual sources. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR and GAMER.
resultsReported screening totals were 367 records and 70 full texts. The final map contained 37 sources: 23 empirical studies, 11 reviews, one protocol, and two conceptual sources. Ten sources provided direct evidence: five perinatal sources (three empirical studies and two reviews), four youth empirical studies, and one older-adult empirical study. The other 27 sources did not support direct cross-population claims. Preconference appraisal agreement was 95.2% (297/312 item pairs; descriptive pooled κ = 0.895). Appraisal identified limitations in representativeness, confounder control, mixed-methods integration, and review procedures. Reported barriers included difficulties before formal service contact, alongside problems in referral navigation, cultural acceptability, workforce capacity, affordability, and continuity. Gatekeepers and service interfaces varied across life-course stages. Validated measurement linking service dimensions and population abilities was limited. Incomplete screening documentation restricted auditability.
conclusionsThe framework offers a comparative vocabulary for examining access pathways and population-specific mechanisms. Findings from this small, heterogeneous evidence base are exploratory, not estimates of barrier prevalence or relative importance. Research should strengthen paired measurement, age-specific reporting, longitudinal designs, and pathway-level intervention evaluation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42920109What 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.