Search

Background: Youth mental health is a growing concern in research, practice, and policy. Practice standards, guidelines, or strategies provide an invisible infrastructure that fosters equity, quality, and safety, potentially addressing inconsistencies and more effectively attending to the mental wellness of Black youth as a particular population of concern. This scoping review aimed to address the following question: What standards exist for the delivery of mental health services to Black youth in community, primary care, and educational settings? Due to a limited initial search yield on publications about standards for the delivery of mental health services for Black youth population, our goal was then to identify and map mental health standards, recommendations, or guidelines for the delivery of mental health services using the same settings to all youth. Methods: Searches were conducted in various databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, Gender Studies Database, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Screening was independently conducted by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third. Information extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Results: Out of the 2,701 screened publications, 54 were included in this scoping review. Among them, 38.9% were published between 2020 and 2023, with 40.7% originating from the United States of America, 20.4% from the United Kingdom, and 13% from Canada. Concerning the settings, 25.9% of the publications focused on primary care, 24.1% on health care services, 20.4% on educational settings, and 3.7% on the community. Additionally, 25.9% were classified as general because recommendations were applicable to various settings. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (11.1%) was the most frequently considered specific condition, followed by autism spectrum disorder (9.3%) and depression (9.3%). However, 31.5% of the included references addressed mental health in general. Only three references provided specific recommendations for the Black population. Conclusions: Recommendations, guidelines, or standards for Black youth mental health services in community, primary care, or educational settings are scarce and limited to North American countries. This scoping review emphasizes the need to consider ethnicity when developing guidelines or standards to improve racial equity and reduce disparities in access to mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary healthcare services have principal responsibility for providing child and youth wellbeing and mental health services, but have lacked appropriate measurement instruments to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth or to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services designed to meet their needs. This review assesses the availability and characteristics of measurement instruments that have been applied in primary healthcare services in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States (CANZUS countries) to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. Methods: Fifteen databases and 12 websites were searched in December 2017 and again in October 2021. Pre-defined search terms pertained to Indigenous children and youth, CANZUS country names, and wellbeing or mental health measures. PRISMA guidelines were followed, with eligibility criteria guiding screening of titles and abstracts, and selected full-text papers. Results are presented based on the characteristics of documented measurement instruments assessed according to five desirability criteria: development for Indigenous youth populations, adherence to relational strength-based constructs, administration by child and or youth self-report, reliability and validity, and usefulness for identifying wellbeing or risk levels. Results: Twenty-one publications were found that described the development and or use by primary healthcare services of 14 measurement instruments, employed across 30 applications. Four of the 14 measurement instruments were developed specifically for Indigenous youth populations, four focused solely on strength-based wellbeing concepts but none included all Indigenous wellbeing domains. Conclusion: There is a diversity of measurement instruments available, but few fit our desirability criteria. Although it is possible that we missed relevant papers and reports, this review clearly supports the need for further research to develop, refine or adapt instruments cross-culturally to measure the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]