Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Apr 4;20(4):e0321074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321074

Safe spaces for youth mental health: A scoping review

Salima Meherali 1,*, Saba Nisa 1, Yared Asmare Aynalem 1, Adeyinka G Ishola 2, Zohra Lassi 3
Editor: Aditya Pawar4
PMCID: PMC11970664  PMID: 40184334

Abstract

Introduction

Mental illness is a significant challenge during adolescence and youth period, posing a threat to individuals’ mental health, well-being, and productivity. Despite the global burden, comprehensive evidence on the use of youth-safe spaces to improve their mental health has been limited. Therefore, this review aims to explore the existing literature on the role of safe spaces in shaping the mental health outcomes of youth.

Methods

We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines. This review focused on individuals aged 10 to 25. It explores safe spaces for youth, including community centers, schools, clubs, and online forums, and their role in promoting youth mental health. We conducted a comprehensive search using PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. Study selection and screening were done using Covidence software, with two independent reviewers applying predefined criteria. We used the standardized table for data extraction; findings were presented using graphical and tabular formats alongside narrative synthesis. Reporting followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework.

Results

The review included 23 studies from various regions, notably North America (USA) and Europe. These studies found that safe spaces, primarily within schools, offered youth mental health support, resources, and guidance. Additionally, community organizations, outreach programs, and primary care clinics were identified as safe spaces to enhance the mental well-being of young adults. The interventions used in these safe spaces included cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness programs, and multi-component approaches. Positive outcomes included reduced posttraumatic stress disorders, anxiety, and substance use, along with improved mental well-being and interpersonal relationships. However, there needs to be more focus on methodological diversity and research in other regions. Geographic imbalances exist, and evidence beyond schools and communities as safe spaces is limited. Intersectional factors are often overlooked.

Conclusion

This review emphasizes the significant impact of safe spaces on youth mental health. It suggests that fostering supportive environments within schools, recreational clubs, and communities can significantly benefit youth mental well-being. The findings highlight the need to expand safe space initiatives to address young people’s challenges during their developmental stage.

Introduction

Young people (10–25 years) represent a critical stage of human development characterized by changes in physical, cognitive, emotional, and social domains as individuals transition from childhood to adulthood [1,2]. Approximately one-fourth of the world’s population falls within this age range [3,4]. Mental illness is a significant challenge to an individual’s overall health, well-being, and productivity. Research shows that 50% of mental health issues emerge before the age of 15, and 75% develop by the age of 25 [5,6]. Mental health disorders in youth include a range of conditions such as depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and schizophrenia, as first-episode psychosis and diagnosis of schizophrenia are common in the 15–25 age group. These disorders can have profound implications for various aspects of development, such as physical and social development. Additionally, untreated mental health issues can hinder academic performance, leading to difficulties in attaining educational and career goals [79]. Furthermore, financial independence and autonomy may be compromised as young adults struggle to cope with the debilitating effects of mental illness [10,11]. Neglecting mental health, a critical component of overall well-being, significantly contributes to global morbidity and mortality rates. Youth mental health programs such as mentoring initiatives, collaborative mental health promotion, and FRIENDS for Life initiatives offer diverse treatment programs to assist them in dealing with significant mental health conditions [12,13]. With proper support, adolescents and young adults can better manage their mental health and lead fulfilling lives. However, many young people find that the existing treatment programs do not fully meet their needs or are designed for the adult population [14,15]. The primary strategy for mitigating the adverse mental health outcomes of mental ill-health among young people is to disseminate comprehensive education regarding the nature and progression of mental health issues [16]. Community-wide awareness campaigns, anti-stigma endeavors, and mental health promotion initiatives have succeeded in several countries [13,16,17].

Safe spaces are those places where adolescents and youth feel secure, accepted, and empowered to express themselves authentically without fear of judgment or harm [18,19]. While traditionally associated with schools, community centers, and recreational facilities, safe spaces now extend to online platforms, social media networks, and peer support groups, reflecting contemporary youth’s evolving needs and preferences [13,17]. Within these spaces, young people navigate myriad stressors and transitions, ranging from academic pressures and conflicts to identity exploration and societal expectations, which can profoundly impact their mental well-being [20,21]. Recognizing the importance of safe spaces in fostering positive mental health outcomes, this scoping review aims to map the existing literature on the role of safe spaces in shaping the mental health trajectories of youth. We aim to map the diverse array of research to delineate critical themes, gaps, and areas for future inquiry, guiding future research and policy through a comprehensive review of available evidence.

Materials and methods

This scoping review is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidelines [22]. The research question guiding this scoping review is: What is the current evidence on the impact of youth safe spaces on mental health outcomes?

Eligibility Criteria

This scoping review follows the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework to set/assess eligibility criteria. It focuses on individuals aged 10 to 25 (population). It explores youth safe spaces and supportive environments tailored for this age group, including community centers, school clubs, and online forums (concept). The review examines mental health outcomes such as decreased depression, anxiety, and stress, and increased resilience and self-esteem among youth in safe spaces. This study includes studies conducted globally (context). We included original research studies published only in English that utilized quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs. We excluded reviews (literature reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews), opinion pieces, editorials, commentaries, and studies unavailable in full-text accessibility.

Search strategy

After consultation with the team, a comprehensive search strategy was meticulously crafted by a seasoned librarian specializing in reviews (MK) at the University of Alberta. The search strategies included prominent electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and we also searched for grey literature from 1996 to 5/11/2023. Search terms tailored to each database included Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords related to “youth safe spaces” and “mental health outcomes” to ensure a thorough search of the literature. Truncation, Boolean operators, and phrase searching were also employed to maximize sensitivity and specificity (Supplementary File 1).

Study selection

The study selection and screening were carried out using Covidence software. Two independent reviewers (YA and SN) completed screening for titles and abstracts against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Potentially relevant studies progressed to full-text reviews, where the same reviewers independently assessed them for final eligibility. Any discrepancies during this process were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer (SM). The study selection process was documented using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram to ensure transparency and rigor [23] (Supplementary File 2). Initially, we identified 8,452 studies from databases and registers. After screening, we removed 4,597 references due to duplicates. We screened 3,855 studies for eligibility and included 23 in the final review (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Prisma Flow Chart.

Fig 1

Data extraction

We meticulously designed the data extraction table for this study to ensure a comprehensive capture of relevant information from selected studies. The two reviewers (SN and YA) followed JBI guidelines for data extraction using a Word document and resolved discrepancies through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. We extracted information such as authors, publication year, country, study design, participants’ details, types of safe spaces and interventions, mental health outcomes assessed, and study methods pertinent to the review question(s). Missing data were documented, and study authors were contacted when feasible. Analysis was based on available information, with limitations noted. (Table 1).

Table 1. Data extraction: Safe spaces for youth mental health.

S/
NO
Author/
year
Country Study Design Age Sample Size Types of Safe Space Intervention Outcome
1 Mora et al., 2022 USA Cohort 15.6 years n = 537 School and Community Extracurricular Activities (unstructured community-based activities) Reduce PTSD
2 Fjermestad et al., 202 Norway Observational 11.6
years
n =  82 School School-based ‘FRIENDS for Life’ program 10-session CBT for youth anxiety prevention and treatment. Reduced anxiety symptoms
3 June T. Forsberg & Jon-Håkon Schultz
, 2022
Gaza RCT 9 and16 years n = 300 School Three-day training BLP-2 implementation for 11 school Reduced stress symptoms
4 Curtin et al., 2015 USA RCT 13–18 years n = 9 School Mentoring Program Enhanced self-esteem. Reduced social anxiety. Improved overall quality of life.
5 Gigantesco et al., 2015 Italy RCT 14–18 years n = 234 School School-based mental health program Enhanced psychological well-being. Increased life satisfaction.
6 Haugland et al., 2020 Norway RCT 14 years n = 313 School Brief and Standard School-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions Reduced level of Anxiety
7 Katz et al.,2019 USA Cross-sectional 12–19 years n = 54 Outreach Group Public Speaking Task for Adolescent Reduction of the level of stress/depression
8 Roche J et al.,2022 USA Effectiveness-implementation hybrid design 14–18 years n = 110 Community-based Primary care clinic SafERteens-PC program Reductions in severe peer aggression, anxiety, and substance use consequences
9 Wasserman D et al.,2015 European Union countries Cluster-RCT Median age 15 years n = 11,110 School Three interventions: Question, Persuade, and Refer (QPR), make the Youth Aware of Mental Health Programme (YAM), and screening by professionals (ProfScreen) with a referral of at-risk pupils. Significant reduction in incident suicide attempts and severe suicidal ideation compared with the control group.
10 Kang Y et al.,2018 USA RCT 11.79 years n = 100 School School-based mindfulness meditation program Improvement in emotional well-being
11 Rickard et al., 2023 China Mixed Method Study 15.1 years n = 153 School Positive education programme Reduction in Depression, anxiety, autonomy, gratitude, mindfulness, satisfaction with life, and relatedness levels
12 Mahmoodabadi et al.,2023 Iran Quasi-experimental study 15 years n = 30 Outreach Program Positive Youth
Development (PYD) Program
Reducing aggression behaviours (physical aggression, anger, and hostility) and only affected adolescent verbal aggression.
13 McAllister et al., 2018 Australia Mixed Method Study 13 years n = 850 School collaborative mental health promotion program Self-efficacy, resilience, and coping strategies in mental health
14 Topooco et al.,2018 UK RCT 15–19 years n = 70 School and Outreach programs Chat- and internet-based cognitive–behavioural
therapy
Reduced symptoms of depression
15 Asanjarani, F.
& Asgari M. 2021
Iran Quasi-experimental study 14 –16 years n = 1,008 School Social and Mental Empowerment Program (SMEP) lower difficulties as measured by SDQ, and higher pro-social behaviors.
16 DeBiase et al., 2021 USA Interventional 16–17 years n = 5 School Multi-component Positive Psychology Intervention (PPI) Increased happiness, improved classroom behavior, and life satisfaction,
17 Denny et al., 2019 New Zealand Observational Study 16 > above n = 15 School school-based health service utilization: use of SBHS was associated with poorer health outcomes, - high levels of depressive symptoms but decreased suicide attempt
18 Anttila et al., 2021 Finland Quasi-Experimental Study 12–17 years (n =  201 in the intervention school, n =  157 in the control school) School The IT-based program “DepisNet,” a user-friendly and feasible support system developed for adolescents with depression. in this study There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any outcomes (depression, quality of life, self-esteem, self-efficacy). Regarding adolescents’ quality of life, the observed change was more positive in the intervention group
19 Chang et al., 2018 Taiwan Quantitative 17.14 years, mean age n = 84 School E-course program on stress management, refusal skills, pros of drug use, There was a significant group time interaction concerning stress management, refusal skills, pros of drug use, and drug use resistance self-efficacy, excluding cons of drug use
20 Ponsoda et al., 2017 Spain Interventional 16 to 18 years n = 30 School out-of-school mindfulness program for stress reduction and emotional well-being Reductions in perceived stress increase in levels of optimism and five specific mindfulness skills.
21 Curtin et al., 2016 USA Pre-post design 13 to 18 years n =  9 School Expanding Horizons: A Pilot Mentoring Program Linking College/Graduate Students and Teens With ASD improvement in self-esteem, social anxiety, and quality of life
22 Eslami et al., 2023 Iran RCT 13 to 18 years n = 106 School school‑based social skills training (SSTS) educational program to prevent adolescents’ problem behaviours Lower levels of MPBI result in a significant difference between groups founded on SST. This suggests that SST was effective in improving social competence and preventing problem behaviours among male adolescents.
23 Connolly et al, 2022 USA Mixed-methods design 12 to 17 years n = 22 School Hope 4 Boys is a youth program that aims to reduce recidivism and prevent male youth from interacting with the Department of Juvenile Justice. Significant increases in hope, life satisfaction, and resilience scores

Data synthesis

The findings of this scoping review are presented in graphical and tabular formats. Additionally, we utilized narrative synthesis to further elaborate on qualitative conclusions and explain how the results relate to and address the research objectives. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive numerical summaries and qualitative content analysis techniques.

Findings

We organized our findings based on the following categories.

Features of the included studies

Among the 23 included studies, most predominantly adopt quantitative methodologies, with experimental designs being the most frequently reported (14 studies) [2437]. Other observational quantitative approaches, such as cohort [3840] and cross-sectional studies [4143], are also represented. In addition, our review includes three mixed-method studies, demonstrating a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis [42,44,45]. We found that most of the studies included population age ranging from 9 to 19 years, with the most common age group falling between 14 to 16 years, comprising a maximum sample size of 11,110 in quantitative studies [24].

Regarding geographical distribution, the evidence from our included studies reveals diversity across continents. North America (USA) emerges as the most represented region, with eight studies providing safe spaces for youth to improve their mental health and resilience [26,29,30,34,38,41,45,46], followed by Europe with seven studies, including countries such as Norway [24,28,39], Italy [27], the UK [32], Finland [35], and Spain [36]. Asia contributes by five studies, represented by China [44], Iran [31,33,37], and Taiwan [40], while Oceania, including Australia [42] and New Zealand [43], contributes by two studies. This distribution underscores the global scope of our research findings.

Types of safe spaces

Our review found that most of the existing literature on safe spaces for youth includes schools as the most popular in providing supportive environments, access to resources, guidance, and opportunities for engagement in meaningful activities (18 studies). These studies identify different safe spaces within school settings, such as school-based health education, covering topics such as sexual health, mental health, substance abuse prevention, and healthy lifestyle choices in a confidential and non-judgmental setting [2428,30,3234,3640,4245]. Moreover, other than schools, community organizations and youth outreach programs are highly effective and provide safe spaces for youth to meet their mental health needs [31,32,38,41]. However, some safe spaces are described as encompassing both school and community environments, while others are associated with outreach programs connected to schools [32,45]. One study identifies a community-based primary care clinic as a safe space. Furthermore, our findings suggest some community-based primary clinics that improve youth mental health [29]. The effectiveness of these programs strongly emphasizes creating safe environments within educational settings, with specific initiatives extending beyond schools to involve community engagement.

Safe space interventions

The included studies identify various intervention types implemented in safe spaces such as schools, communities, and outreach groups to improve mental health outcomes. In schools, initiatives like the ‘FRIENDS for Life’ program [39], which focuses on building resilience and promoting social and emotional skills, aim to foster friendships and strengthen social connections among individuals. Our findings also revealed that leveraging technology for internet-based therapy or peer support networks can improve accessibility and engagement among youth and adolescents [47,48]. Moreover, a three-day training session on Building Learning Power (BLP-2], a strategy to promote resilience, growth mindset, and self-awareness and foster mental well-being through innovative educational approaches in schools, is notable [25]. Additionally, various mental health programs, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions and mindfulness meditation programs, are integrated into school settings [27,28,36,44], emphasizing positive education and social skills training. Community-based interventions extend beyond school grounds, encompassing activities like extracurricular programs [37,38], mentoring initiatives [26], and collaborative mental health promotion efforts [30,42]. Notably, one intervention connects college/graduate students with teens diagnosed with ASD, aiming to provide support and expand horizons [26,33].

Other interventions used include Multi-component interventions that utilize strategies such as Question, Persuade, and Refer (QPR) and Youth Aware of Mental Health Programme (YAM), complemented by professional screening and referral systems. These interventions comprehensively address mental health needs by combining various evidence-based strategies and resources [24,31,34]. Additionally, interventions used by community safe spaces, such as group public speaking tasks and the SafERteens-PC program, are implemented to address mental health concerns [24,29,40,41,43]. The SafERteens-PC program is a youth-focused initiative to promote safety, well-being, and mental health among teenagers. It involves education and resources aimed at enhancing teen awareness of safety issues, such as substance abuse prevention, violence prevention, and mental health promotion.

Mental health outcomes

The safe space and intervention programs demonstrated effectiveness in producing a range of outcomes across various domains, notably enhancing mental health and overall well-being. Mental health and well-being outcomes include reductions in PTSD [38], anxiety [2426,28,29,32,36,39,41,44], gambling symptoms, and a decrease in intrusive thoughts, such as those related to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or suicidal ideation [24,40,43]. Behavioral and functional outcomes involve reductions in aggressive behaviors such as physical aggression, anger, and hostility, along with enhancements in social competence and problem behaviors [24,29,31,4042]. Interventions also reduce substance use consequences, significantly decrease suicide attempts and severe suicidal ideation, and improve classroom behavior [24,43].

Psychological and cognitive realms have witnessed positive change, including boosts in self-esteem [26,37], reductions in social anxiety [26,44], and enhancements in quality of life and psychological well-being among youth [26,36,40]. Moreover, there has been an increase in life satisfaction [27,44,45] and happiness, accompanied by improvements in self-efficacy, resilience, coping mechanisms, stress management, and resistance to drug use[24,29,34,42,45]. Interpersonal and social dimensions have also seen remarkable improvements, with interventions fostering better interpersonal relationships, reducing personal stigma toward mental health conditions, and promoting pro-social behaviors [26,27,34,36,40,44]. Interventions improved mental health outcomes for youth and focused on improving staff well-being and morale and increasing public satisfaction with mental health services at organizational and systemic levels [30,33].

Discussion

This review mapped evidence on how safe space interventions can enhance mental health and well-being among youth aged 10–25. Our study found existing evidence with a predominant quantitative methodology, like experimental designs, indicating rigorous data collection and analysis. While qualitative approaches received less attention, incorporating mixed-method studies showed a commitment to triangulating findings and comprehensively capturing the complexity of teenage experiences. However, it is essential to integrate qualitative methodologies, which have yet to receive less attention in the literature. These approaches, including interviews, focus groups, and participant observation, offer valuable insights into youths’ subjective experiences and perspectives within safe spaces [4749].

The review discusses the available safe spaces for supporting youth mental health and well-being. Schools are highlighted as crucial environments for youth development and support, offering structured programs and interventions to address mental health issues. This result aligns with other research emphasizing the role of educational settings in providing a supportive environment for mental health interventions [49,50]. Safe spaces within schools go beyond physical environments to include supportive relationships, accessible resources, and inclusive policies [51]. However, we observed a shortage of research focusing on community centers and health clinics providing safe environments to young people (3 studies only). Limited safe spaces might contribute to social isolation, a lack of support networks, and difficulties in accessing mental health resources and services among youth [52,53]. Moreover, it highlights the need to broaden safe space interventions to include young individuals who may not have access to school-based programs. This finding aligns with the recommendation to design programs and places conducive to mental health for youth [54,55].

The findings of our review are congruent with previous studies that documented interaction-based interventions in schools and communities as effective in improving youth mental health outcomes, including reducing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD. These interventions also enhance social competence, interpersonal relationships, and behavioral outcomes, indicating a broader impact on youth development and functioning [49,56,57]. The review also suggests the potential of digital approaches like mobile apps and social media platforms to enhance the accessibility and engagement of safe space interventions, mirroring studies on digital mental health interventions [49,50]. Our findings also revealed that leveraging technology for internet-based therapy or peer support networks can improve accessibility and engagement among young adults. This emphasizes a holistic approach to mental health promotion by targeting various aspects of youth well-being across diverse settings. Multi-level interventions incorporating components like economic empowerment, peer support, and cognitive behavioral therapy have also proven effective in improving mental health among vulnerable youth; this is concurrent with previous studies on multi-level interventions on mental health outcomes among youth in sub-Saharan Africa [58,59]. A holistic understanding of these outcomes highlights the transformative potential of safe space interventions [60]. Disparities in safe space provision globally reveal unequal access to mental health support for youth. While North America and Europe lead, Asia and Oceania have fewer studies, indicating a need for more research and interventions, especially in low- and middle-income countries with limited resources promoting overall youth well-being.

This scoping review has several strengths and limitations. A key strength is its inclusion of studies from around the world, offering a comprehensive global perspective. The review also followed a systematic and transparent methodology, enhancing the reliability of the findings. However, notable limitations include the exclusion of non-English studies, which may have overlooked relevant research. Additionally, the potential for publication bias and the heterogeneity in study design, sample size, and quality could affect the generalizability and comparability of the results. Furthermore, the scoping methodology focuses on summarizing available evidence rather than critically evaluating or scoring the quality of the studies.

Implications

The review findings offer valuable insights that can guide researchers and practitioners in shaping their approach to youth mental health interventions and safe spaces. Several key gaps were identified, which can inform future research and practice.First, most studies were from high-income regions (e.g., North America and Europe), with limited representation from low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Asia and Oceania. This highlights the need for more research in underrepresented regions to assess the effectiveness of safe spaces for mental health and address the unique challenges faced by youth in these areas. Funding agencies should prioritize research in these regions to fill existing knowledge gaps.Second, although the study focuses on ages 10–25, most interventions primarily target younger adolescents, neglecting the needs of older youth. Future interventions should address the mental health needs of older youth to ensure inclusivity across the entire age range.Third, intersectional factors such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status remain underexplored. Future studies should prioritize these factors to better understand how different identities influence the effectiveness of safe spaces and interventions.

While the review discusses implications for policy and practice, specific actionable recommendations are limited. We suggest that future research incorporate methodological diversity to capture a comprehensive view of the field. The broad age range and significant sample size underscore the importance of inclusive research designs, ensuring that diverse youth experiences are represented. Additionally, the scarcity of safe spaces outside schools highlights the vulnerability of youth to mental health challenges, emphasizing the need to expand interventions beyond educational settings. Policy development should focus on creating safe spaces in community centers and other relevant environments, with a clear focus on resource allocation and intervention guidelines.Practitioners, including mental health professionals, educators, and community workers, would benefit from strategies tailored to the specific mental health needs of youth. Furthermore, addressing underexplored areas, such as cultural sensitivity in interventions and gender-specific mental health needs, is crucial. Ensuring the sustainability of safe space initiatives through ongoing funding and support is vital for creating long-term impacts.Future research could explore innovative digital approaches, such as using social media platforms and virtual safe spaces, to enhance youth mental health while addressing concerns around digital abuse. Longitudinal studies are essential for assessing the lasting effects of safe space interventions on youth mental health and well-being. Additionally, funding frameworks should be designed to ensure continuous support for these initiatives, prioritizing long-term investment to sustain their impact and effectiveness.

Conclusion

Safe spaces play a crucial role in addressing the mental health challenges young people face by providing a supportive environment where they can seek accurate information and assistance and develop healthy behaviors. While safe spaces are instrumental, further research is necessary to refine and evaluate interventions within these environments. While schools are commonly recognized as safe spaces, broadening interventions to various settings is essential to addressing a broader range of outcomes and meeting diverse needs of young adults globally. Safe space interventions promote mental health and well-being among youth globally. Geographical disparities underline the need for global collaboration in fostering safe spaces for youth to improve mental health outcomes effectively.

Supporting information

Supplementary File 1. Supplementary files on database searching Strategies.

(DOCX)

pone.0321074.s001.docx (32.6KB, docx)
Supplementary File 2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0321074.s002.docx (26.8KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Keeley B. The state of the world’s children 2021: On my mind--promoting, protecting and caring for children’s mental health. 2021
  • 2.Wood D, Crapnell T, Lau L, Bennett A, Lotstein D, Ferris M et al. Emerging adulthood as a critical stage in the life course. Handb Life Course Health Dev. 2018;123–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Naik U. Magnitude of mental health problems in adolescence. Practical Approach Cogn Behav Ther Adolesc. 2015;3–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guthold R, Carvajal-Velez L, Adebayo E, Azzopardi P, Baltag V, Dastgiri S, et al. The Importance of Mental Health Measurement to Improve Global Adolescent Health. J Adolesc Health. 2023;72(1S):S3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.03.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Danese A, Smith P, Chitsabesan P, Dubicka B. Child and adolescent mental health amidst emergencies and disasters. Br J Psychiatry. 2020;216(3):159–62. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2019.244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Collishaw S. Annual research review: Secular trends in child and adolescent mental health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(3):370–93. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data and statistics on children’s mental health. 2020;15.
  • 8.Kuitunen-Paul S, Roessner V, Basedow LA, Golub Y. Beyond the tip of the iceberg: A narrative review to identify research gaps on comorbid psychiatric disorders in adolescents with methamphetamine use disorder or chronic methamphetamine use. Subst Abus. 2021;42(1):13–32. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2020.1806183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Perry BD. Stress, trauma and posttraumatic stress disorders in children. Child Trauma Acad. 2007;17:42–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shah EN, Szwedo DE, Allen JP. Parental autonomy restricting behaviors during adolescence as predictors of dependency on parents in emerging adulthood. Emerg Adulthood. 2023;11(1):15–31. doi: 10.1177/21676968221121158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Powles M. Development of financial independence from the family: A model. Aust J Educ. 1991;35(1):75–88. doi: 10.1177/000494419103500108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Silverstone P, Suen V, Ashton C, Hamza D, Martin E, Rittenbach K. Are complex multimodal interventions the best treatments for mental health disorders in children and youth?. J Child Adolesc Behav. 2016;4(4):. doi: 10.4172/2375-4494.1000305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kwok KHR, Yuan SNV, Ougrin D. Review: Alternatives to inpatient care for children and adolescents with mental health disorders. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2016;21(1):3–10. doi: 10.1111/camh.12123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Erskine HE, Maravilla JC, Wado YD, Wahdi AE, Loi VM, Fine SL, et al. Prevalence of adolescent mental disorders in Kenya, Indonesia, and Viet Nam measured by the National Adolescent Mental Health Surveys (NAMHS): A multi-national cross-sectional study. The Lancet. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kieling C, Baker-Henningham H, Belfer M, Conti G, Ertem I, Omigbodun O, et al. Child and adolescent mental health worldwide: evidence for action. Lancet. 2011;378(9801):1515–25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60827-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McGorry PD, Mei C, Chanen A, Hodges C, Alvarez-Jimenez M, Killackey E. Designing and scaling up integrated youth mental health care. World Psychiatry. 2022;21(1):61–76. doi: 10.1002/wps.20938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wahlbeck K, Cresswell-Smith J, Haaramo P, Parkkonen J. Interventions to mitigate the effects of poverty and inequality on mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(5):505–14. doi: 10.1007/s00127-017-1370-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Catalano RF, Skinner ML, Alvarado G, Kapungu C, Reavley N, Patton GC, et al. Positive youth development programs in low- and middle-income countries: A conceptual framework and systematic review of efficacy. J Adolesc Health. 2019;65(1):15–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Meherali S, Rehmani M, Ali S, Lassi ZS. Interventions and strategies to improve sexual and reproductive health outcomes among adolescents living in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescents. 2021;1(3):363–90. doi: 10.3390/adolescents1030028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pérez-Aronsson F. Do I look white?: Creating community in online safe spaces for racialized youth. Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Swist T, Collin P, McCormack J, Third A. Social media and the well-being of children and young people: A literature review. 2015.
  • 22.Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, Langlois EV, O’Brien KK, Horsley T, et al. Reporting scoping reviews-PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:177–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wasserman D, Hoven CW, Wasserman C, Wall M, Eisenberg R, Hadlaczky G, et al. School-based suicide prevention programmes: The SEYLE cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9977):1536–44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61213-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Forsberg JT, Schultz J-H. Educational and psychosocial support for conflict-affected youths: The effectiveness of a school-based intervention targeting academic underachievement. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2022;11(2):145–66. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2022.2043209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Curtin C, Humphrey K, Vronsky K, Mattern K, Nicastro S, Perrin EC. Expanding horizons: A pilot mentoring program linking college/graduate students and teens with ASD. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2016;55(2):150–6. doi: 10.1177/0009922815588821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gigantesco A, Del Re D, Cascavilla I, Palumbo G, De Mei B, Cattaneo C, et al. A universal mental health promotion programme for young people in Italy. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:345926. doi: 10.1155/2015/345926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Haugland BSM, Haaland ÅT, Baste V, Bjaastad JF, Hoffart A, Rapee RM, et al. Effectiveness of brief and standard school-based cognitive-behavioral interventions for adolescents with anxiety: A randomized noninferiority study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(4):552–564.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2019.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roche JS, Philyaw-Kotov ML, Sigel E, Eisman AB, Tzilos Wernette G, Resnicow K, et al. Implementation of a youth violence prevention programme in primary care. Inj Prev. 2022;28(3):231–7. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2021-044293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kang Y, Rahrig H, Eichel K, Niles HF, Rocha T, Lepp NE, et al. Gender differences in response to a school-based mindfulness training intervention for early adolescents. J Sch Psychol. 2018;68:163–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zareei Mahmoodabadi ZH, Ebrahimi A, Sooreshjani RH. Effectiveness of the positive youth development (PYD) program on reducing aggression among high school female students. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23(1):340. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02487-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Topooco N, Berg M, Johansson S, Liljethörn L, Radvogin E, Vlaescu G, et al. Chat- and internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy in treatment of adolescent depression: Randomised controlled trial. BJPsych Open. 2018;4(4):199–207. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Asanjarani F, Asgari M. Effects of a school-based program on Iranian students’ well-being. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2020;9(sup1):S103–12. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2020.1758858 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.DeBiase E, Bray M, Levine M, Graves M, Long M. Improving well-being and behavior in adolescents utilizing a school-based positive psychology intervention. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2021;10(4):461–77. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2021.1881000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Anttila M, Lantta T, Ylitalo M, Kurki M, Kuuskorpi M, Välimäki M. Impact and feasibility of information technology to support adolescent well-being and mental health at school: A quasi-experimental study. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:1741–53. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S311788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Carreres-Ponsoda F, Escarti A, Llopis-Goig R, Cortell-Tormo J. The effect of an out-of-school mindfulness program on adolescents’ stress reduction and emotional well-being. Cuad Psicol Deport. 2017;17(3):35–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Eslami AA, Ghofranipour F, Bonab BG, Zadeh DS, Shokravi FA, Tabatabaie MG. Evaluation of a school-based educational program to prevent adolescents’ problem behaviors. J Educ Health Promot. 2015;4:30. doi: 10.4103/2277-9531.154127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mora AS, LoDuca KM, Ceballo R. Adolescents in the Community: Extracurricular Activities and Sexual Harassment. J Youth Adolesc. 2023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fjermestad KW, Wergeland GJ, Rogde A, Bjaastad JF, Heiervang E, Haugland BSM. School-based targeted prevention compared to specialist mental health treatment for youth anxiety. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2020;25(2):102–9. doi: 10.1111/camh.12366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chang C-C, Liao J-Y, Huang C-M, Hsu H-P, Chen C-C, Guo J-L. Evaluation of the effects of a designated program on illegal drug cessation among adolescents who experiment with drugs. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2018;13(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13011-017-0139-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Katz DA, Peckins MK, Lyon CC. Adolescent stress reactivity: Examining physiological, psychological and peer relationship measures with a group stress protocol in a school setting. J Adolesc. 2019;74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.McAllister M, Knight BA, Hasking P, Withyman C, Dawkins J. Building resilience in regional youth: Impacts of a universal mental health promotion programme. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018;27(3):1044–54. doi: 10.1111/inm.12412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Denny S, Grant S, Galbreath R, Utter J, Fleming T, Clark T. An observational study of adolescent health outcomes associated with school-based health service utilization: A causal analysis. Health Serv Res. 2019;54(3):678–88. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rickard NS, Chin TC, Cross D, Hattie J, Vella-Brodrick DA. Effects of a positive education programme on secondary school students’ mental health and well-being; Challenges of the school context. Oxford Rev Educ. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Connolly J. Hope 4 boys: The impact of a youth diversion program. Dissert Abstr Int B Sci Eng. 2023;84(1-B):No-Specified. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dickson E, Rishel Brakey H, Wilson P, Hackett JM, McWethy M. Classroom voices: Youth perspectives to direct school-based sexual health education. Sex Education. 2023;46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pepe A, Farina E. A mixed-method study on adolescents’ well-being during the COVID-19 syndemic emergency. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):871. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24007-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mensa-Kwao A, Sub Cuc I, Concepcion T, Kemp CG, Hughsam M, Sinha M, et al. A mixed methods analysis of youth mental health intervention feasibility and acceptability in a North American city: Perspectives from Seattle, Washington. PLoS One. 2024;19(3):e0288214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Daniele K, Gambacorti Passerini MB, Palmieri C, Zannini L. Educational interventions to promote adolescents’ mental health: A scoping review. Health Educ J. 2022;81(5):597–613. doi: 10.1177/00178969221105359 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Garrido S, Millington C, Cheers D, Boydell K, Schubert E, Meade T, et al. What works and what doesn’t work? A systematic review of digital mental health interventions for depression and anxiety in young people. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:759. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Muraleedharan A, Lizy P, Rajeev S. Schools as safe spaces for adolescents: A mental health perspective. Authorea Preprints. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bessaha M, Persaud U, Asfe R, Muñoz-Laboy M. Community-based providers’ perspectives on addressing loneliness and mental health services for migrant youth and emerging adults. J Soc Serv Res. 2023;49(1):93–104. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2022.2164640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Pretorius C, Chambers D, Coyle D. Young people’s online help-seeking and mental health difficulties: Systematic narrative review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(11):e13873. doi: 10.2196/13873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kidger J, Donovan JL, Biddle L, Campbell R, Gunnell D. Supporting adolescent emotional health in schools: A mixed methods study of student and staff views in England. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:403. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Swann C, Telenta J, Draper G, Liddle S, Fogarty A, Hurley D, et al. Youth sport as a context for supporting mental health: Adolescent male perspectives. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2018;35:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.11.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mehra D, Lakiang T, Kathuria N, Kumar M, Mehra S, Sharma S, editors. Mental health interventions among adolescents in India: A scoping review. Healthcare. 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Xu J, Khanotia A, Juni S, Ku J, Sami H, Lin V, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based well-being interventions for stress reduction in young adults: Systematic review. JMIR Ment Health. 2024;11:e52186. doi: 10.2196/52186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Opie JE, Vuong A, Welsh ET, Gray R, Pearce N, Marchionda S, et al. Outcomes of best-practice guided digital mental health interventions for youth and young adults with emerging symptoms: Part I. A systematic review of socioemotional outcomes and recommendations. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2024:1–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mthiyane N, Rapulana AM, Harling G, Copas A, Shahmanesh M. Effect of multi-level interventions on mental health outcomes among adolescents in sub-saharan africa: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(10):e066586. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Collins P, Sinha M, Concepcion T, Patton G, Way T, McCay L, et al. Making cities mental health friendly for adolescents and young adults. Nature. 2024:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Aditya Pawar

17 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-28524Safe Spaces for Youth Mental Health: A Scoping ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nisa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The authors have presented a systematic review and the writing does bring forth the key concepts and the characteristics of the studies in the given domain of safe spaces and the interventions used in such spaces with some evidence of effect on mental health outcomes. While a detailed analysis is out of scope for this review, even for a scoping review the authors should attempt to classify in the introduction as well as in the abstract as what they classified as safe spaces. This is more clear from looking at the search terms in the supplement but it would benefit the reader to know from abstract itself as to what is the main domain of this review.  The reviewers have pointed out some language errors which the authors should address. The authors have highlighted some knowledge gaps specific to how the research is less in some countries in this domain and how longitudinal research may add further. Yet these are more general limitations present in most of the literature considering a larger number of studies are cross-sectional as  well as this domain is not so well researched. It would serve better to expand on how the studies could have improved and what are the barriers that could help in more research in this area, such as whether it is more of an awareness issue related to safe space, or there is less attention given to mental health. Expanding on the knowledge gaps would make the review more meaningful. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 31 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. As required by our policy on Data Availability, please ensure your manuscript or supplementary information includes the following:

A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses. 

For every excluded study, the table should list the reason(s) for exclusion. 

If any of the included studies are unpublished, include a link (URL) to the primary source or detailed information about how the content can be accessed.

A table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The table must include the following information for each study:

Name of data extractors and date of data extraction

Confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review. 

All data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses.

If data or supporting information were obtained from another source (e.g. correspondence with the author of the original research article), please provide the source of data and dates on which the data/information were obtained by your research group.

If applicable for your analysis, a table showing the completed risk of bias and quality/certainty assessments for each study or outcome.  Please ensure this is provided for each domain or parameter assessed. For example, if you used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, provide answers to each of the signalling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgements about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome. 

An explanation of how missing data were handled.

This information can be included in the main text, supplementary information, or relevant data repository. Please note that providing these underlying data is a requirement for publication in this journal, and if these data are not provided your manuscript might be rejected.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well written in a lucid style and highlights an important aspect of emotional ,social and holistic development of youths and young adults. More research and actions need to be undertaken in the community development of safe spaces.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This manuscript tackles an important topic by exploring the role of safe spaces in supporting youth mental health. It addresses a critical area of research with global significance. Here are my comments and suggestions:

Abstract: Under method section - “Followed”, make it lower case to “followed”

- Introduction: Make it consistent “mental health” where possible. I see to many different terminology used for the same.

- “Mental health disorders in youth include a range of conditions such as depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)”. Consider adding schizophrenia, as first episode psychosis and diagnosis of Schizophrenia tends to be very common in age group between 15-25 years old.

- Search Strategy : Authors indicated that search for Grey literatures was done. Explain if those literatures were used for the review or excluded. If used then I recommend to indicate separately in the PRISMA flow chart.

- Data Extraction : Please include details on how you handled missing data in the included studies during extraction.

- Results and discussion :You mentioned the imbalance in geographical distribution earlier in the paper. Consider providing a comparative analysis of interventions across regions to offer deeper insights into the influence of regional differences on intervention efficacy.

- Consider adding recommendations for funding frameworks and longitudinal study designs to ensure the sustainability and long-term impact of these interventions.

- The manuscript effectively highlights schools as key environments for youth mental health interventions but only briefly mentions community-based interventions. Consider addressing how community settings could fill gaps left by school-based programs, such as supporting out-of-school youth.

Reviewer #3: Overall, this is a well-written article. It provides a good case for the need to explore safe spaces and its overall benefit to youth.

Introduction: This section includes a good review of research already present on the topic, along with defining safe spaces and the myriad of environments they can be present. Some considerations can be made with the wording. For example, for the following sentence on page 3: “Mental ill-health is a significant challenge, posing a threat to individuals’ health, well-being, …” It appears redundant to mention mental ill-health and then an individuals’ health again in the same sentence. Also, what is the reasoning behind mentioning “mental ill-health” vs. calling it “mental illness”?

Further along in the same paragraph, it mentions: “Youth mental health programs such as mentoring initiatives, collaborative mental health promotion, and friends for life initiatives…” It seems that the “friends for life” initiative should be capitalized as it seems to be naming a specific initiative.

Materials and Methods:

Authors have done a good job of providing a thorough explanation of the methods used in the review. They can consider a table to synthesize and categorize the final set of studies chosen for the review. For example, how many were initially reviewed, how many were selected and of those how many were school-based, community-based, etc. Providing it in a table or figure format would make visualization easier for the reader.

Under eligibility criteria on page 4, it mentions “The review examines mental health outcomes like decreased depression, anxiety, stress, resilience, and self-esteem among youth in safe spaces.” Authors can consider omitting the word “decreased” or adding the word “increased” before “resilience, and self-esteem” for consistency.

On page 6, under “features of the included studies” section, it states: “North America emerges as the most represented region…followed by Europe…including countries like Norway…”. The word “like” is not necessary, authors can simply list the countries that were included without the word “like”.

On page 7, where “FRIENDS for Life initiative” is mentioned, it would be helpful to provide brief information about what that entails.

Mental Health Outcomes:

It is to note that the body of the review does not have a clearly labelled “Results” section. Authors can consider adding this.

On page 8, it mentions “Mental health and well-being outcomes include reductions in PTSD, anxiety, gambling symptoms, and a decrease in intrusive thoughts”. Please clarify what is meant by intrusive thoughts – was the study looking at OCD, or intrusive thoughts of a suicidal nature, etc.?

Although it is a scoping review, authors can consider mentioning some specific outcomes, such as the range of decrease in depressive symptoms across various studies (e.g. 10-50%), or the range of decrease in anxiety or suicidal thoughts, etc. It would also be interesting to note any differences in outcomes between safe spaces in schools vs. community centers vs. primary care centers, etc.

Discussion:

This section provided a good review of the results, its applicability to the public, and future considerations for research. On page 10, it mentions: “Nevertheless, with valuable insights into mental health intervention within safe spaces, our stay may have limitations”. This appears to be a typo, I believe it meant to say “..our study has some limitations”.

Overall, the paper did a good job at highlighting areas of growth in the community for improving mental health in youth. Authors can consider the points discussed above.

Reviewer #4: The scoping review titled "Safe Spaces for Youth Mental Health" provides a valuable synthesis of the literature concerning safe spaces and their role in enhancing youth mental health. While the limitations have been discussed, there are some additional limitations that need to be addressed or mentioned in the limitations:

1. The majority of included studies originate from high-income regions (e.g., North America and Europe), with limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

2. Although the study targets ages 10-25, the majority of interventions cater to younger adolescents, neglecting older youth.

3. Intersectional factors such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are underexplored.

4. While the study emphasizes implications for policy and practice, specific actionable recommendations are limited.

It would be helpful to provide detailed guidelines for policymakers and practitioners, such as frameworks for implementing safe spaces in diverse contexts.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Mohsin Raza

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 4;20(4):e0321074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321074.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Jan 2025

Dear editor, Thank you for your feedback and the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We addressed all points raised, revising the abstract and introduction to clearly define "safe spaces," correcting language errors, and expanding the discussion on knowledge gaps by detailing study improvements and barriers to research. We have uploaded a rebuttal letter, a revised manuscript with tracked changes, and a clean version without tracked changes. Thank you for your guidance, and we look forward to your response.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-Safe space mental health.docx

pone.0321074.s004.docx (16.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Aditya Pawar

27 Feb 2025

PONE-D-24-28524R1Safe Spaces for Youth Mental Health: A Scoping ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nisa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I appreciate your making the required edits, the manuscript seems to be in good shape. Kindly incorporate few minor changes as suggested by reviewers. I could see the PRISMA flowchart attached so no addition is needed in that regard. Please make sure that the figures and tables are referenced correctly in the manuscript.

 Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 13 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2:  Thank you for addressing and considering my recommendations. I have no additional comments. I believe this manuscript can be accepted in its current form. I am still not able to see a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart. Adding a PRISMA can significantly enhance the credibility and rigor of the study and helps in reproducibility as well.

All the best.

Reviewer #3:  Authors have done a good job with the revision of the paper. Authors can consider the following edits:

1. On page 3, it states “Mental health is a significant challenge, posing a threat to individuals’ health, well-being…”. Authors can consider changing this to “Mental illness is a significant challenge to an individual’s overall health, well-being, and productivity.” Reasoning would be that it is mental illness, not mental health, that is the challenge. Also, mentioning the word “health” twice in the same sentence appears redundant.

2. On page 7, please clarify if “FRIENDS for Life” should be capitalized as such? In the introduction section earlier, it is capitalized as “Friends for Life”. Please make it is consistent throughout the article.

3. The rest of this writer’s previous concerns have been addressed.

Reviewer #4:  (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Mohsin Raza

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Nikhil Tondehal

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 4;20(4):e0321074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321074.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2


27 Feb 2025

We have made the required changes and carefully addressed the points you raised in your feedback. We appreciate your time and thoughtful suggestions, which have helped us improve the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter 27-02-2025.docx

pone.0321074.s005.docx (13.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Aditya Pawar

2 Mar 2025

Safe Spaces for Youth Mental Health: A Scoping Review

PONE-D-24-28524R2

Dear Dr. Nisa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Aditya Pawar

PONE-D-24-28524R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nisa,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Supplementary File 1. Supplementary files on database searching Strategies.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0321074.s001.docx (32.6KB, docx)
    Supplementary File 2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0321074.s002.docx (26.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-Safe space mental health.docx

    pone.0321074.s004.docx (16.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter 27-02-2025.docx

    pone.0321074.s005.docx (13.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES