SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Scoping review of precision child and youth mental health research: dwelling in possibility.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. 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
Introduction: Precision child and youth mental health (PCYMH) offers a promising array of tools and methodologies to address the intensifying burden of mental health challenges in child and youth populations. However, the current state of PCYMH research requires better characterization. To this end, we conducted a scoping review aiming to provide a 'lay of the literature' for this emerging field. Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, we searched PubMed and Embase for PCYMH studies from January 1, 1980 to November 30, 2023, updating the search on November 1, 2024. The final dataset comprised 124 publications, summarized with descriptive quantitative analysis and qualitative content analysis. Results: Quantitative analyses revealed that 48% (60/124) of studies had been published between 2020 and 2024, with the majority (51% (63/124)) studying populations in the U.S. Most studies were observational in design. Content analysis revealed four categories of PCYMH research focus: (1) Biomarkers (68% (84/124)); (2) Non-Biological Markers (17% (22/124)); (3) Implementation of PCYMH Interventions (14% (17/124)); and (4) Predictive Algorithms (5% (6/124)). PCYMH tools were underutilized and infrequently combined. Studies producing multimodal profiles of participants, e.g., using neuroimaging, genetics, digital health data, and lifestyle data were scarce. No study used reporting guidelines. Discussion: Our findings indicate that this body of research is still in its infancy. We highlight opportunities to advance the study of PCYMH and provide recommendations to support the maturation of this new field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.