Patient-centered access to mental health care at selected life-course stages: a scoping review using the Levesque framework
7 affiliations
- 1Faculty of Health Care, Hochschule Niederrhein
- 2Faculty of Social Work, Hochschule Niederrhein
- 3Nutrition Communication and Public Health, Faculty of Nutritional Sciences, Hochschule Niederrhein
- 4Faculty of Health Care
- 5Epidemiology and Biometry, Faculty of Health Care
- 6Research Funding Officer, Division of Research and Knowledge Transfer
- 7Research Assistant, Faculty of Health Care, Hochschule Niederrhein
Abstract
Background The 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. Methods We 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. Results Reported 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. Conclusions The 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.
Related
- Teledentistry and Its Potential to Reduce Care Inequalities in Dental Implantology: A Scoping Review Using the Access Framework Developed by Levesque et al.
- Integration of community health workers (CHWs) and lay/peer workers in universal healthcare systems: a scoping review of high-income countries using the Lévesque conceptual framework of access to healthcare
- The promise and limits of patient-reported outcomes in molecular tumor board-guided care: toward a framework for patient-centered precision oncology.
- Development and evaluation of a practical teaching model for medical laboratory interns based on the "quality-safety-patient-centered" triple helix framework.
- Theory of Artificial Intelligence Adaptation for Linguistic Concordance: Bridging Gaps in Patient-Centered Communication
BibTeX
@article{cwik2026patientcentered,
title = {{Patient-centered access to mental health care at selected life-course stages: a scoping review using the Levesque framework}},
author = {Jan Christopher Cwik and Moritz Hess and Claudia Kardys and Thomas Plieger and Annika Walker and Maria Weyermann and Jessica Frieß and Luisa Hilbrand and Ben Rohrbach and Bernhard Breil},
journal = {BMC Health Services Research},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s12913-026-15895-z},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15895-z},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Patient-centered access to mental health care at selected life-course stages: a scoping review using the Levesque framework
AU - Jan Christopher Cwik
AU - Moritz Hess
AU - Claudia Kardys
AU - Thomas Plieger
AU - Annika Walker
AU - Maria Weyermann
AU - Jessica Frieß
AU - Luisa Hilbrand
AU - Ben Rohrbach
AU - Bernhard Breil
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/25
JO - BMC Health Services Research
DO - 10.1186/s12913-026-15895-z
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15895-z
AB - Background The 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. Methods We 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. Results Reported 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. Conclusions The 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.
SN - 1472-6963
ER -