Participation of Children and Youth in Mental Health Policymaking: A Scoping Review [Part I]

Abstract

Purpose Although youth participation is oft-acknowledged as underpinning mental health policy and service reform, little robust evidence exists about the participation of children and youth in mental health policymaking.Method A scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework was conducted to identify and synthesize available information on children and youth's participation in mental health policymaking. Published studies up to November 30, 2020 were searched in Medline (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), Scopus, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (PROQUEST). Unpublished studies were identified through Google Scholar and targeted web searches October to December, 2020. Three reviewers performed screening and data extraction relevant to the review objective, followed by an online consultation. ResultsFrom 2,981 records, 25 publications were included. A lack of diversity among the youth involved was found. Youth were often involved in situational analysis and policy design, but seldom in policy implementation and evaluation. Both the facilitators of and barriers to participation were multifaceted and interconnected. Despite a range of expected outcomes of participation for youth, adults, organizations, and communities, perceived and actual effects were neither substantially explored nor reported.

A Protocol for a Rapid Realist Review of Literature Examining Co-Production in Youth Mental Health Services

“…Nevertheless, two of these reviews highlight the lack of research in this field. This is a conclusion seen both in a 2022 scoping review by Yamaguchi et al [17] into youth participation in mental health policymaking and a 2013 scoping review [13] into co-production across adult and youth mental health. In the same year, Viksveen et al's larger systematic review on user involvement (including co-production) in youth mental health was published [18].…”

“…Though most definitions of co-production describe stakeholders as equal partners, in practice, equity is very difficult to achieve in youth mental health services (for individuals aged [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. This is due to the power differentials between service users and professionals [14] and youth and adults [30].…”

“…In the same year, Viksveen et al's larger systematic review on user involvement (including co-production) in youth mental health was published [18]. Though it included more studies (24), with a total of only 587 participants contributing to them, this review does not challenge the claim of research paucity identified by Norton [16], Yamaguchi et al [17], and Slay and Stephens [13]. Moreover, many of the studies on user involvement in Viksveen et al's [18] review are not investigating co-production but other types of user participation or engagement.…”

Guidelines for implementing and adapting evidence-based interventions with marginalized youth in schools.

“…For example, it is critical that school partners identify the key issues they believe may be impacting students’ mental health, well-being, and academic performance (Wong, 2006). Likewise, we suggest soliciting student voice and perspective—especially from diverse and representative groups of youth—is imperative (Yamaguchi et al, 2023). With this information visible and clear, the intervention can then be tailored in response to formal and informal feedback from parents, educators, community members, and youth themselves.…”

“…Likewise, key stakeholders’ input on the selection of strategies and measures, as well as giving community members an option to assist in recruitment and data collection, may further aid in addressing potential sources of disparities (Collins et al, 2018). Identifying potential sources of disparities may be especially beneficial when there are competing values or power dynamics between researchers and key stakeholders, which can sometimes lead to academic priorities dominating community needs or even the needs of the youth being served (Yamaguchi et al, 2023). Being able to identify sources of disparities during the planning phase of the intervention could prevent these disparities from occurring and optimize the benefits received by community partners and students themselves.…”