Skip to main content
Download PDF

Youth not engaged in education, employment, or training: a discrete choice experiment of service preferences in Canada

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1402 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Prior research has showed the importance of providing integrated support services to prevent and reduce youth not in education, employment, or training (NEET) related challenges. There is limited evidence on NEET youth’s perspectives and preferences for employment, education, and training services. The objective of this study was to identify employment, education and training service preferences of NEET youth. We acknowledge the deficit-based lens associated with the term NEET and use ‘upcoming youth’ to refer to this population group.

Methods

Canadian youth (14–29 years) who reported Upcoming status or at-risk of Upcoming status were recruited to the study. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, which included ten attributes with three levels each indicating service characteristics. Sawtooth software was used to design and administer the DCE. Participants also provided demographic information and completed the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs–Short Screener. We analyzed the data using hierarchical Bayesian methods to determine service attribute importance and latent class analyses to identify groups of participants with similar service preferences.

Results

A total of n=503 youth participated in the study. 51% of participants were 24–29 years of age; 18.7% identified as having Upcoming status; 41.1% were from rural areas; and 36.0% of youth stated that they met basic needs with a little left. Participants strongly preferred services that promoted life skills, mentorship, basic income, and securing a work or educational placement. Three latent classes were identified and included: (i) job and educational services (38.9%), or services that include career counseling and securing a work or educational placement; (ii) mental health and wellness services (34.9%), or services that offer support for mental health and wellness in the workplace and free mental health and substance use services; and (iii) holistic skills building services (26.1%), or services that endorsed skills for school and job success, and life skills.

Conclusions

This study identified employment, education, and training service preferences among Upcoming youth. The findings indicate a need to create a service model that supports holistic skills building, mental health and wellness, and long-term school and job opportunities.

Peer Review reports

Background

Youth not in education, employment, or training (NEET) struggle to navigate school to work transitions and experience difficulties accessing jobs [1]. These youth are disconnected from school, have limited work experience [2], and experience a loss of economic, social, and human capital [3]. NEET status is associated with lower education, parental unemployment, low socioeconomic status, low self-confidence, more precarious housing, and young parenthood [4,5,6,7,8]. In Canada, the percentage of NEET youth (15–29 years) was estimated at 11% in 2022 [9]. Importantly, NEET status is not homogenous across the country, ranging from 36% in Nunavut, 20% in Northwest Territories, and 17% in Newfoundland and Labrador to 10% in Quebec, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia) [10]. Supporting and protecting these marginalized youth remains a challenge, particularly in light of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which adversely impacted the school to workforce transition for youth across the country [11]. Although the term NEET has been used to describe this population, it is considered stigmatizing and associated with a deficit-based lens[12]. As such, and in consultation with one of our youth team members, we refer to this population as ‘Upcoming youth’[13].

Upcoming status has gained attention across Canada in recent decades [14]. As an illustration of this focus, federal, provincial/territorial, and local programs exist to support Upcoming youth across the country [15]. Despite these efforts, evidence indicates program fragmentation, limited coordination across sectors and regions, and a lack of evaluation of these programs [16]. Further, these programs may be available to youth on a short-term basis and specific to youth who meet education, income, and age criteria [17]. There is a lack of knowledge of how to (re)engage Upcoming youth in general education and employment support services. Often the same limited outcomes are measured and reported (e.g., job attainment) with services focusing on these outcomes. At the same time, youth have not been asked what outcomes they prefer and accordingly what services they would like. Indeed, selective outcome reporting and lack of engagement of youth impairs the quality of evidence and contributes to research waste [18]. Given the heterogeneity of Upcoming status, this lack of evidence is particularly important for subgroups of youth (e.g., geographic location; socioeconomic status; mental health status) who face challenges in the school-to-work transition.

Prior global research has emphasized the importance of integrated, coordinated interventions that offer a range of support services (e.g., on-the-job, classroom-based, and social skills training) to prevent and reduce Upcoming status [19,20,21,22,23] [24]. Integrated youth service (IYS) models, which integrate education, employment, mental and physical health, substance use, peer support, and navigation in one, youth-friendly location have been established in Canada [25]. IYS deliver services that meet the needs, goals, and preferences of youth, and hold promise in serving vulnerable Upcoming youth through the provision of holistic services in a youth-friendly environment. Indeed, IYS models are investigating how to optimize employment, education, and training services as a critical component of supporting youth wellbeing and their successful transition to adulthood. This point is particularly important as Upcoming youth experience greater mental health and substance use (MHSU) concerns compared to youth who do not identify as Upcoming [26, 27].

An essential component to designing and enhancing health and social services for Upcoming youth is understanding their perspectives [28]. Yet, there is a lack of evidence on Upcoming youth’s perspectives and preferences for employment, education, and training services within the Canadian context. For interventions to be relevant to the needs and experiences of youth—which will increase their chances of using the services and benefiting from them—it is important to understand what youth aim to achieve when participating in an intervention. Engaging youth in identifying service components and interventions will ensure that programs and services are relevant, feasible, and appropriate to this population group [29].

An approach that can be used to identify the demands and preferences of youth is the discrete choice experiment (DCE) [30, 31]. The DCE is a quantitative method that requires participants to state their choice over sets of alternatives described in terms of several characteristics called attributes and the value placed on each attribute [30, 31]. In this way, the DCE is able to identify the importance of attributes along which a variety of service options vary, as well as service preferences among subgroups. DCEs are one of the most popular methods for eliciting stated- preferences in health care [32, 33]. They force participants to make trade-offs, identifying the importance of different service attributes [32, 33]. Previous findings generated from DCE studies have been useful in informing service design and delivery, resource allocation, and policies, including the preferred design of IYS services [34,35,36,37].

Understanding service preferences from the perspective of Upcoming youth is critical for the development of interventions and policies that will help youth navigate the school-to-work transition. As such, the objective of the current study was to identify employment, education and training service preferences of Upcoming youth. As our approach to COVID-19-related impacts shifts, the need for this research is more urgent than ever, as a way to support vulnerable youth, reduce Upcoming status, prevent further exclusion, and help them on their path towards adulthood.

Methods

Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE)

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology was used in this study, as described in the study protocol [13]. We followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines on good research practices for conjoint analysis [38]. Attributes and levels were developed using the following methods. First, we reviewed the literature on relevant and preferred services for youth with Upcoming and at-risk Upcoming status [26]. An initial set of six attributes with three to four levels was developed from the literature review, highlighting components such as mental health, goals, and skills training. Second, focus groups were conducted among youth (16–29 years) with Upcoming and at-risk Upcoming status across Canada to obtain youth feedback on proposed service outcomes [39]. Thematic analysis [40] of the focus group data identified prominent attributes and levels, including skills training, mentorship, and networking. The project team included youth team members with lived/living experience of MHSU concerns and researchers; meetings were held with the team to refine the attributes and levels.

The list of attributes and levels were piloted among n = 9 youth (16–29 years) across Canada. Pilot participants completed the DCE with a member of the project team. The aim of the pilot was to obtain youth feedback on the proposed list of attributes and levels, as well as the design and functionality of the DCE. Based on pilot feedback, a final list of attributes and levels was developed. The final DCE list included ten attributes, each with three levels. The attributes included mentorship; skills for school and job success; technical skills; life skills; basic income; networking opportunities; securing a work or educational placement; career counselling; access to free mental health and substance use services; and support for mental health and wellness in the workplace. Using a 3 × 3 partial-profile design, we used Sawtooth software (version 9.14.2) [41] to administer the 14 randomized choice tasks. This design was chosen to optimize orthogonality, minimize participant burden, and ensure data robustness [42]. Table 1 shows a sample choice task; Additional File 1 contains the full list of attributes and levels in the study.

Table 1 Sample of discrete choice experiment choice task
Full size table

Participants and procedure

The study was approved by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health’s (CAMH) Research Ethics Board in Toronto, Canada. This study consisted of n = 503 youth (14–29 years), recruited over a three-month period in late 2022 and early 2023. The sample size was based on a priori power calculations and exceeds the sample size of most DCE studies [13]. Study flyers with survey links were distributed through internal CAMH and external professional networks, as well as through social media (Facebook and Instagram).

Participants were eligible to complete the DCE if they were between the ages of 14 and 29 years; lived in Canada at the time of survey completion; and identified as Upcoming status or having ever been concerned of being at-risk of Upcoming status (self-identified). They were screened through an online survey sent via email, hosted on REDCap electronic software [43]. Participants gave informed consent and filled out anti-spam and eligibility questions. Those who were eligible were sent a link to complete the DCE through Sawtooth Software [41]. The survey was in English only. They also filled out self-report questionnaires on demographics, and mental health and substance use. Reminder emails to complete the survey were sent to participants once per week, with a maximum of three reminders sent. A total of n = 515 participants initiated the survey and n = 503 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 97.7%. The median time to complete the DCE was 20.63 min. Participants received a $30 gift card as honorarium for survey completion.

Measures

Mental health and substance use measures

Participants completed the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs–Short Screener (GAIN-SS) (version 3) [44]. Internalizing disorders (depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, trauma etc.); externalizing disorders (hyperactivity, conduct problems, attention deficits, impulsivity etc.); and substance use disorders are domain subscales that are screened in the GAIN-SS [44]. The GAIN-SS also includes a crime/violence domain, however, low level of endorsement in this study precluded the inclusion of this subscale. Participants rated each administered symptom “never” to “within the past month”, indicating how recently they experienced symptom difficulties. Within each domain subscale, endorsed past month symptoms were counted and summed. Scores could range between 0–6, 0–7, and 0–5 for the Internalizing, Externalizing, and Substance Use Problems domain, respectively. Following previous literature, three or more items endorsed within the past month indicate a high likelihood of needing services and/or meeting threshold criteria for psychiatric diagnoses [44, 45].

Covariates

Demographic characteristics were collected. We included age (categorical measure), gender identity (man/boy [cis, trans]; woman/girl [cis, trans]; Gender diverse); ethnicity (White; Indigenous, Black, Asian, Mixed); region in Canada (Prairies, Western/Northern, Atlantic, Central); self-rated physical and mental health (good/very good/excellent; fair/poor) [46]; socioeconomic status (live comfortably; income meets needs with a little left; just meet basic expenses; don’t meet basic expenses); living arrangement (alone; with partner; with family; other); and area of residence (large city and suburbs of large city; small city, town, village or rural area).

Youth engagement

Following the McCain Model of Youth Engagement [47], and working with the Youth Engagement Initiative at the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth & Family Mental Health, we engaged youth throughout the study. To enhance study design, promote youth buy-in, and relevance of the study, youth were involved from project inception and implementation of study activities to interpretation of findings and manuscript development.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using Sawtooth Software version 9.14.2 [41] and Stata version 16.1 [48]. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables overall and by latent-class grouping. Using hierarchical Bayesian methods within Sawtooth Software [41], utility estimates were calculated for each participant. Standardized zero-centered utilities were used and the average utility range of attribute levels was set to 100 (49) to calculate the estimates. Attributes with higher utility estimates indicated higher relative value compared with other attributes (Table 2).

Table 2 Overall average attribute importance scores and standard errors
Full size table

To identify groups of participants with similar service preferences, we conducted latent class analyses [41]. To belong to a latent class, probabilities were assigned to each participant. Using different starting seeds, five replications for each latent class group was calculated, with log-likelihood decreases of 0.01 or less indicating convergence. Based on the analysis, we retained a three-class model. This model was determined by analyzing the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Consistent Akaike Information Criterion (CAIC), and Akaike’s Bayesian Information Criterion (ABIC); latent class sizes; and the interpretation of latent class groupings (Table 3.). Team discussions with youth team members were held to review the importance scores and rankings and establish the names of the latent glass groupings (Table 4). Stata 16.1 [48] was used to compare latent classes on demographic characteristics and GAIN-SS scores using chi-square tests.

Table 3 Fit indices for latent class solutions ranging from one to five classes
Full size table
Table 4 Attribute importance scores and rankings by latent class
Full size table

Results

Table 5 presents participant demographic characteristics. The majority of participants were between 24 and 29 years of age; lived in urban areas; were engaged in employment and training only; and identified as White and girl/woman (Trans, cis). Almost two thirds of participants (65.79%) met threshold criteria for an internalizing disorder, followed by 36.62% with an externalizing disorder, and 8.65% with a substance use disorder.

Table 5 Demographic characteristics  (n=503)
Full size table

Overall service preferences

The overall service preferences and importance scores of participants are presented in Table 2. Participants positively endorsed services that promoted life skills, mentorship, basic income, and securing a work or educational placement. Participants were least likely to endorse technical skills. Within life skills services, youth positively endorsed services that included managing finances, taxes, and skills associated with self-care and cooking. The provision of a mentor who worked within the participant’s field of interest was preferred by all youth. Participants positively endorsed basic income until having secured employment that matched the basic income level. All youth preferred services that provided support to secure long-term job positions or school placements that aligned with their career interests or long-term goals.

Table 3. illustrates the fit indices of the latent class analysis. A three-class model was retained based on fit, size of latent class grouping, and interpretation of findings. Attribute importance scores and rankings are presented in Table 4 by latent class. There were some commonalities identified across the latent classes. All latent classes positively endorsed services that offered mentorship (mentors in their field of interest, with similar backgrounds, or peer mentors), basic income, and networking. Youth preferred the provision of a mentor with work experience in their field of interest. Participants also positively endorsed receiving basic income until 25 years of age (regardless of school or job status), or until they had found a job that matched the basic income level. In addition, all participants endorsed skills to network and opportunities to network in their area of interest.

Over 60% of participants from all of the latent classes reported fair/poor mental health. In addition, over 60% of participants in each latent class grouping met threshold criteria for an internalizing disorder, compared to the other GAIN-SS disorders. Furthermore, more participants identified as having lived in large cities/suburbs compared to small cities/towns in each latent class.

Latent Class 1: Job and educational services

The first latent class endorsed services that focused on education and long-term job services, focusing on a career trajectory (n = 204, 38.9%). Attributes that drove these decisions included career counselling and securing a work or educational placement. Youth positively endorsed career counselling that helped to figure out career goals, create a resume, and complete job applications. Further, youth positively endorsed receiving long-term job positions or school placements that align with their career interests and long-term goals, as opposed to temporary or any job position. Participants from this latent class (Table 6) were more likely to be 24–29 years of age compared to other ages. Approximately 22.06% of youth in this latent class identified as Upcoming.

Table 6 Demographic and clinical characteristics by latent class (n = 503)
Full size table

Latent Class 2: Mental health and wellness services

The second latent class endorsed mental health and wellness services (n = 171, 34.9%). This latent class preferred that services offer support for mental health and wellness in the workplace and free mental health and substance use services. Specifically, participants positively endorsed the provision of on-site in-person, individual mental health and substance use services, as opposed to the provision of virtual or in-person group services. Further, youth positively endorsed ongoing access to a support worker to help in securing accommodations in the workplace, as opposed to learning how to advocate for oneself in workplace or support during job onboarding. Participants that endorsed this latent class (Table 5) tended to identify as Indigenous, Black, Asian, and Mixed; girl/woman (cis, trans); both student and employed; income met needs with a little left; and rated their physical health as good/excellent. Approximately 16.96% of youth in this latent class identified as Upcoming.

Latent Class 3: Holistic skills building services

Skills building was the focus of the third latent class (n = 128, 26.1%). Participants positively endorsed skills for school and job success, as well as life skills. Specifically, youth were interested in learning about how to organize time; prioritize tasks; identify problems and solutions; as well as professionalism, communication and relationship building. Youth were also interested in life skills that focused on learning about how to manage finances and taxes, as well as self-care and cooking. Participants in this latent class (Table 5) tended to identify as White; employed only; living in an urban area; and income that just met basic expenses. Approximately 15.63% of youth in this latent class identified as Upcoming.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study was the first to identify employment, education, and training service preferences among Upcoming youth and those at-risk of Upcoming status using discrete choice experiment methods. The findings indicate that overall, youth value services that enhance their ability to deal effectively with life demands; receive advice and guidance by a mentor; and obtain financial support through basic income. In examining youth participants by latent class, the findings indicate a need to create a service model that supports long-term school and job opportunities, holistic skills building, and mental health and wellness. Job and educational services prioritized long-term job and school placements, with career counselling. Mental health and wellness services endorsed free, easily accessible and in-person support services. Meanwhile, holistic skills building focused on problem solving, communication, relationship building, and organization of time, as well as building skills to help youth manage daily life.

Participants highly endorsed services that promote life skills, mentorship, and basic income. For life skills, participants valued skills that included managing finances, taxes, and skills like self-care or cooking. Participants may have valued this service attribute because life skills empower youth. These skills are positive behaviours that give youth the knowledge, values, attitudes, and abilities necessary to effectively meet and deal with everyday challenges [50, 51]. Prior research has shown how these skills strengthen psychosocial competencies, promote health and social relationships, and protect against risk-taking behaviours [51].

For mentorship, participants valued having a mentor who has work experience in the field they are interested in. Prior research has shown the negative associations between unemployment, exclusion, and economic hardship among Upcoming youth [52, 53]. Participants may have chosen this service attribute as mentoring is a key component of career development. Career mentoring provides opportunities for career exploration and strengthening decision-making within this domain [54,55,56,57]. Research has shown the benefits of mentorship. Mentors are a positive resource, providing support and guiding youth as they navigate and succeed in their careers [54, 58, 59].

Youth also prioritized receiving basic income until they secured employment that matches the basic income level. Empirical evidence has shown associations between income and youth mental health outcomes [60,61,62]. Indeed, Johnson et al. [63] [63] posit that a universal basic income can positively affect health through behaviour, resources, and stress. Defined as income support to populations with minimal or no conditions [64], prior research has shown the benefits of a basic income plan in terms of poverty reduction, improvements in physical and mental health, economic growth, and human capital gains [65,66,67,68,69]. In a qualitative study in England [70], youth (14–24 years) reported that a universal basic income plan would improve their mental health through financial security, agency, greater equality, and improvements in relationships.

Differences in service preferences were observed among youth subgroups based on the identified latent classes. Youth who identify as Indigenous, Black, Asian, and Mixed prioritized mental health and wellness services compared to youth who identify as White. Previous literature has showed that Indigenous, Black, and racialized youth have experience longer wait times and poorer quality of mental health care compared to their White counterparts [71,72,73]. Prior literature has described how MHSU systems often do not consider or address the discrimination, systemic racism, economic marginalization, and intergenerational traumas that Indigenous, Black, and racialized populations experience within and outside of the service system [74, 75]. These negative experiences adversely affect their access to and quality of MHSU care, leading to inequities in MHSU outcomes. To ensure that mental health and substance use services are culturally responsive, safe, effective, and available to Indigenous, Black, and racialized youth, services should incorporate their perspectives into service design and delivery. The finding that youth 24–29 years of age endorsed job and educational services focused on long term career planning could be attributed to being more advanced in thinking about their careers and a desire to find a career as opposed to a job [57, 76, 77]. It could also be due to older youth experiencing poorer labour market conditions [19, 78, 79]. To improve long-term job opportunities for youth, Canada’s labour standards need to be updated, ensuring protection and benefits to informal and non-standard youth workers (17).

A critical component for education, employment, and training services is raising awareness about these services and their benefits among youth. A 2019 survey among NEET youth (16–29 years) in Canada showed that 54% reported a hard time finding information on the labour market services, while 42% said the information available on these services was not easy to understand [80]. One way to address this issue is by delivering services to Upcoming youth at the local, community level. In fact, as IYS strengthen education, employment and training services, these community-based services can support youth by connecting them with local job opportunities. IYS can also work with other public, private and community organizations to change local, fragmented school and work policies [19]. Another way to address this issue would be to provide access to this information at an earlier age, as shown in a parliamentary enquiry in Victoria, Australia in which career management was recommended for incorporation into primary school curriculum[81].

All three latent classes preferred services that provided mentorship, basic income, and networking opportunities. Youth value mentorship opportunities from individuals with experience in their field of interest. Similarly, youth prioritized networking opportunities in their field of interest. Federal, provincial/territorial and local programs could harness this preference by creating mentorship and networking structures across public, private, and community organizations for youth [17]. Further, the provision of basic income would help support youth as they re-engage with school and the labour market [17]. Interestingly, technical skills were not endorsed by youth in this study. Although technical skills are endorsed as part of technical and vocational education and training programs [82], it may be that youth were not as concerned about enhancing technical skills as they were other services. Future research should investigate youth experiences of technical skill programs.

It is important to note that participants in all latent classes endorsed poor mental health, while a higher proportion of youth screened positive for internalizing disorders compared to other disorders. These findings are in line with prior literature, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]. It could also reflect the positionality of the researchers. The survey was administered by CAMH, a mental health teaching hospital, and could have been seen more among youth connected with mental health services compared to those not connected to CAMH. Prior research has showed that life skills training can promote positive development, mental wellbeing, and prevent risky behaviours [92, 93]. The prioritization of long-term school and job placements among youth with mental health concerns indicates a need to strengthen these services for this cohort.

In fact, in 2020 the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model [94, 95], which provides mental health service users with personalized vocational support alongside mental health support to obtain employment, education, and training opportunities was launched in Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec to strengthen existing IYS, including ACCESS Open Minds, Foundry, and Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario [96]. The program was implemented in 12 hubs across the country and is currently being evaluated. Despite the challenges that have arisen over the course of the pandemic, COVID-19 has highlighted an opportunity to improve the education, employment and training support systems that serve these youth. Some of the core principles of implementation of the IPS model align with findings from the current study and include integration of mental health treatment teams, employment specialists to support young people as they navigate the labour market, rapid job search approaches, and tailored job supports, among other principles [94].

Indeed, in building on the services endorsed in this study, it would be important to incorporate an evaluation framework such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [97] to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of these services. Determining potential outcomes that could be measured would also be important. Following the IPS model, for job and educational placements, services could implement the Youth Employment and Education Survey [94, 95]. Potential outcomes could include status of school or employment, job permanency, educational placement duration, and satisfaction with the program, among others. For mental health and wellness support services, outcomes could focus on the number of in-person visits, satisfaction with the services, and self-reported mental health, among others. For holistic services, potential outcomes could focus on reporting and monitoring self-reported goals for problem-solving and communication, among others. It would be important to continuously assess and match services to Upcoming youth preferences.

We would like to acknowledge some limitations. This study includes a non-randomized sample of youth across Canada. Our study included less than 20% of youth who identified as Upcoming, which limits our ability to generalize the findings to this population group. Further research is needed among youth who identify as Upcoming to determine if these education, employment, and training services represent their preferences. Further, youth without stable and consistent internet access would also have been missed. We were unable to recruit large populations of youth from specific Indigenous and racialized backgrounds, although these did account for nearly half the sample. These groups may have different needs and preferences. Future research should investigate their perspectives on employment, education, and training services. In addition to the structure of the DCE survey, along with following a rigorous process in the development of the attributes and levels, there could have been some youth service priorities not assessed. Furthermore, as some of the attributes and levels built on each other, these commonalities could have influenced preference elicitation for specific service attributes. We tried to ensure that the survey was youth-friendly for all youth, however due to the cognitive capacity required to complete the survey, some youth with greater mental health and learning challenges may have been missed.

Conclusions

This study identified employment, education, and training service preferences among Upcoming youth and those at-risk of Upcoming status in Canada. The findings indicate a need at the federal, provincial/territorial, and local level to create a service model that supports school and job opportunities long-term; mental health and wellness; and building holistic skills. The model also requires community-based and youth-centred approaches in the design and delivery of these services. Our findings further support the need for widespread policy support for broader-spectrum IYS for Upcoming youth and those at-risk of Upcoming status.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

ABIC:

Akaike’s Bayesian Information Criterion

AIC:

Akaike Information Criterion

BIC:

Bayesian Information Criteria

CAIC:

Consistent Akaike Information Criterion

CAMH:

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

DCE:

Discrete Choice Experiment

GAIN-SS:

Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener

I:

Importance Scores

IPS:

Individual Placement and Support model

ISPOR:

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

IYS:

Integrated Youth Services

MHSU:

Mental health and substance use

NEET:

Not in education, employment, or training

R:

Rankings

SE:

Standard Errors

YWHO:

Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario

References

  1. Unit SE. Bridging the gap: New opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training. London: HMSO; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dea B, Glozier N, Purcell R, McGorry PD, Scott J, Feilds K-L, et al. A cross-sectional exploration of the clinical characteristics of disengaged (NEET) young people in primary mental healthcare. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carcillo S. NEET youth in the aftermath of the crisis: Challenges and policies. Paris: OECD; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. England PH. Local action on health inequalities: Reducing the number of young people not in employment, education or training. London: UCL Institute of Health Equity; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dorsett R, Lucchino P. Explaining patterns in the school-to-work transition: an analysis using optimal matching. Adv Life Course Res. 2014;22:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henderson J, Hawke L, Chaim G. Not in employment, education or training: mental health, substance use, and disengagement in a multi-sectoral sample of service-seeking Canadian youth. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;75:138–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benjet C, Hernández-Montoya D, Borges G, Méndez E, Medina-Mora ME, Aguilar-Gaxiola S. Youth who neither study nor work: mental health, education and employment. Salud Publica Mex. 2012;54(4):410–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Genda Y. Jobless youths and the NEET problem in Japan. SSJ. 2007;10:23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Statistics Canada. 2023. Table 37–10–0196–01 Percentage of 15-to 29-year-olds in education and not in education by labour force status, highest level of education attained, age group and sex. https://doi.org/10.25318/3710019601-eng

  10. Percentage of 15-to 29-year-olds in education and not in education by labour force status, highest level of education attained, age group and sex. Statistics Canada; 2023. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710019601.

  11. Hanushek EA, Woessmann L. The economic impacts of learning losses. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yates S, Payne M. Not so NEET? A critique of the use of ‘NEET’ in setting targets for interventions with young people. J Youth Stud. 2006;9(3):329–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawke LD, Hayes E, Iyer S, Killackey E, Chinnery G, Gariépy G, et al. Youth-oriented outcomes of education, employment and training interventions for upcoming youth: protocol for a discrete choice experiment. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2021;15(4):942–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Canada S. Education Indicators in Canada: an international perspective. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mahboubi PHA. Lives put on hold: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canada’s Youth. Toronto: The C.D. Howe Institute; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cukier W, Mo G, Karajovic S, Blanchette S, Hassannezhad Z, Elmi M, et al. Labour Market Implications for Racialized Youth. Toronto: The Diversity Institute & Future Skills Centre; 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Government of Canada. 13 ways to modernize youth employment in Canada - strategies for a new world of work. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2017.

  18. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paabort H, Flynn P, Beilmann M, Petrescu C. Policy responses to real world challenges associated with NEET youth: a scoping review. Front Sustain Cities. 2023;5:1154464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Quintano C, Mazzocchi P, Rocca A. The determinants of Italian NEETs and the effects of the economic crisis. Genus. 2018;74(1):5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruesga S, Laxe F, Picatoste X. Sustainable development, poverty, and risk of exclusion for young people in the European Union: the case of NEETs. Sustainability. 2018;10:4708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Robert S, Romanello L, Lesieur S, Kergoat V, Dutertre J, Ibanez G, et al. Effects of a systematically offered social and preventive medicine consultation on training and health attitudes of young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs): An interventional study in France. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0216226.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Haikkola L. Classed and gendered transitions in youth activation: the case of Finnish youth employment services. J Youth Stud. 2021;24(2):250–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1715358.

  24. Mawn L, Oliver EJ, Akhter N, Bambra CL, Torgerson C, Bridle C, et al. Are we failing young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of re-engagement interventions. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Research CIoH. IYS-Net aims to build a healthy future for Canada's youth. Ottawa: CIHR; 2023. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53552.html.

  26. Gariépy G, Danna SM, Hawke L, Henderson J, Iyer SN. The mental health of young people who are not in education, employment, or training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022;57(6):1107–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gariépy G, Iyer S. The mental health of young Canadians who are not working or in school. Can J Psychiatry. 2019;64(5):338–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brownlie E, Chaim G, Heffernan O, Herzog T, Henderson J. Youth services system review: moving from knowledge gathering to implementation through collaboration, youth engagement, and exploring local community needs. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2017;36:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Darnay K, Hawke LD, Chaim G, Henderson J. INNOVATE Research: Youth Engagement Guidebook for Researchers. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Janssen EM, Hauber AB, Bridges JFP. Conducting a discrete-choice experiment study following recommendations for good research practices: an application for eliciting patient preferences for diabetes treatments. Value Health. 2018;21(1):59–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) … designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2009;24(2):151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hawke LD, Thabane L, Iyer SN, Jaouich A, Reaume-Zimmer P, Henderson J. Service providers endorse integrated services model for youth with mental health and substance use challenges: findings from a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hawke LD, Thabane L, Wilkins L, Mathias S, Iyer S, Henderson J. Don’t forget the caregivers! A discrete choice experiment examining caregiver views of integrated youth services. Patient. 2021;14(6):791–802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Henderson J, Hawke LD, Iyer SN, Hayes E, Darnay K, Mathias S, et al. Youth perspectives on integrated youth services: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Can J Psychiatry. 2022;67(7):524–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhu N, Hawke LD, Prebeg M, Hayes E, Darnay K, Iyer SN, et al. Intervention outcome preferences for youth who are out of work and out of school: a qualitative study. BMC Psychol. 2022;10(1):180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Software S. Lighthouse Studio. Utah: Sawtooth Software; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Software S, The CBC. Advanced design module technical paper. Sequim: Sawtooth Software; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dennis ML, Feeney T, Stevens LH. Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener (GAIN-SS): Administration and Scoring Manual for the GAINSS Version 2.0.1. Bloomington: Chestnut Health Systems; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dennis ML, Chan YF, Funk RR. Development and validation of the GAIN Short Screener (GSS) for internalizing, externalizing and substance use disorders and crime/violence problems among adolescents and adults. Am J Addict. 2006;15(Suppl 1):80–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Canada S. Table 13–10–0763–01 Health characteristics of children and youth aged 1 to 17 years, Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth 2019. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Heffernan OS, Herzog TM, Schiralli JE, Hawke LD, Chaim G, Henderson JL. Implementation of a youth-adult partnership model in youth mental health systems research: challenges and successes. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1183–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 16. 16th ed. TX: College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bk O. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research Publishers; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Taute F. Life skills training as part of employee assistance programs in South Africa. J Work Behav Health. 2008;22(4):97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Comprehensive life skills framework. rights based and life cycle approach to building skills for empowerment. New York: UNICEF; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Egdell V, Beck V. A capability approach to understand the scarring effects of unemployment and job insecurity: developing the research agenda. Work Employ Soc. 2020;34(5):937–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mojsoska-Blazevski N, Petreski M, Bojadziev MI. Youth survival in the labour market: employment scarring in three transition economies. The Economic and Labour Relations Review. 2017;28(2):312–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bakshi AJ, Joshi J. The Interface between Positive Youth Development and Youth Career Development: New Avenues for Career Guidance Practice. In: Arulmani G, Bakshi AJ, Leong FTL, Watts AG, editors. Handbook of Career Development: International Perspectives. New York: Springer New York; 2014. p. 173–201.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Hamilton SF, Hamilton MA. Development in youth enterprises. New Dir Youth Dev. 2012;2012(134):65–75, 9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Mekinda MA. Support for career development in youth: program models and evaluations. New Dir Youth Dev. 2012;2012(134):45–54, 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hamilton S, Hamilton MA. School, work, and emerging adulthood. In: Arnett J, Tanner JL, editors. Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006. p. 257–77.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Halpern R. Supporting vocationally oriented learning in the high school years: rationale, tasks, challenges. New Dir Youth Dev. 2012;2012(134):85–106 (10).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bimrose J, Brown A. Mid-career progression and development: the role for career guidance and counseling. 2014. p. 203–22.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pitchforth J, Fahy K, Ford T, Wolpert M, Viner RM, Hargreaves DS. Mental health and well-being trends among children and young people in the UK, 1995–2014: analysis of repeated cross-sectional national health surveys. Psychol Med. 2019;49(8):1275–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Haula T, Vaalavuo M. Mental health problems in youth and later receipt of social assistance: do parental resources matter? J Youth Stud. 2022;25(7):877–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Landstedt E, Coffey J, Nygren M. Mental health in young Australians: a longitudinal study. J Youth Stud. 2015;19:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Johnson MT, Johnson EA, Nettle D, Pickett KE. Designing trials of universal basic income for health impact: identifying interdisciplinary questions to address. J Public Health. 2021;44(2):408–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wispelaere J, Stirton L. The many faces of universal basic income. The Political Quarterly. 2004;75:266–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Fromm E. The Psychological Aspects of the Guaranteed Income. 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Garfinkel I, Huang CC. The Effects of a Basic Income Guarantee on Poverty and Income Distribution. In: Ackerman B, Alstott A, van Parijs P, editors. Redesigning Distribution: Basic income and stakeholder grants as cornerstones for real egalitarian capitalism (Real Utopias Project). New York: Verso Books; 2003. p143-174

  67. Van Parijs P. The universal basic income: why Utopian Thinking matters, and how sociologists can contribute to It*. Polit Soc. 2013;41(2):171–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Forget E, Marando D, Surman T, Urban MC. Pilot lessons: how to design a basic income pilot project for Ontario. Mowat Publication. 2016;123:1-30.

  69. Gibson M, Hearty W, Craig P. The public health effects of interventions similar to basic income: a scoping review. The Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e165–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Johnson EA, Webster H, Morrison J, Thorold R, Mathers A, Nettle D, et al. What role do young people believe Universal Basic Income can play in supporting their mental health? J Youth Stud. 2023;1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2023.2256236

  71. Fante-Coleman T, Jackson-Best F. Barriers and facilitators to accessing mental healthcare in Canada for Black youth: a scoping review. Adolescent Research Review. 2020;5(2):115–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Chiu M, Amartey A, Wang X, Kurdyak P. Ethnic differences in mental health status and service utilization: a population-based study in Ontario. Canada Can J Psychiatry. 2018;63(7):481–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Gajaria A, Guzder J, Rasasingham R. What’s race got to do with it? A proposed framework to address racism’s impacts on child and adolescent mental health in Canada. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;30(2):131–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Smye V, Browne AJ, Josewski V, Keith B, Mussell W. Social suffering: indigenous peoples’ experiences of accessing mental health and substance use services. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(4):3288.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Cénat JM, Kogan C, Noorishad PG, Hajizadeh S, Dalexis RD, Ndengeyingoma A, et al. Prevalence and correlates of depression among Black individuals in Canada: the major role of everyday racial discrimination. Depress Anxiety. 2021;38(9):886–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Arnett J. Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Messersmith EE, Garrett JL, Davis-Kean PE, Malanchuk O, Eccles JS. Career development from adolescence through emerging adulthood insights from information technology occupations. J Adolesc Res. 2008;23(2):206–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Bradley SMG, Paniagua MN. Spatial variations and clustering in the rates of youth unemployment and NEET. Lancaster: Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Caroleo F, Rocca A, Mazzocchi P, Quintano C. Being NEET in Europe before and after the economic crisis: an analysis of the micro and macro determinants. Soc Indic Res. 2020;149:1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. The Labour Make Information Council. Finding Their Path: What Youth Not In Employment, Education or Training (NEET) Want. Ottawa: The Labour Make Information Council; 2019.

  81. Hooley T. Career education in Primary School. Education Services Australia: Melbourne; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  82. UNESCO. Strategy for Technical and Vocational Education and Training. Paris: UNESCO; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  83. McMahon G, Douglas A, Casey K, Ahern E. Disruption to well-being activities and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: the mediational role of social connectedness and rumination. J Affect Disord. 2022;309:274–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. McNamara L. School recess and pandemic recovery efforts: ensuring a climate that supports positive social connection and meaningful play. FACETS. 2021;6:1814–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Cardenas MC, Bustos SS, Chakraborty R. A “parallel pandemic”: the psychosocial burden of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(11):2187–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Almeida ILL, Rego JF, Teixeira ACG, Moreira MR. Social isolation and its impact on child and adolescent development: a systematic review. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2021;40:e2020385.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Saurabh K, Ranjan S. Compliance and psychological impact of quarantine in children and adolescents due to covid-19 pandemic. Indian J Pediatr. 2020;87(7):532–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Racine N, McArthur BA, Cooke JE, Eirich R, Zhu J, Madigan S. Global Prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(11):1142–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Blackwell CK, Mansolf M, Sherlock P, Ganiban J, Hofheimer JA, Barone CJ, et al. Youth well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatrics. 2022;149(4):e2021054754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Ezeoke OM, Kanaley MK, Brown DA, Negris OR, Das R, Lombard LS, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on adolescent wellness in Chicago. Child Care Health Dev. 2022;48(6):886–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Tombeau Cost K, Crosbie J, Anagnostou E, Charach A, Monga S, Kelley E, et al. Mostly worse, occasionally better: impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Canadian children and adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;31:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Foxcroft DR, Tsertsvadze A. Universal school-based prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;5:Cd009113.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Botvin GJ, Baker E, Dusenbury L, Botvin EM, Diaz T. Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population. JAMA. 1995;273(14):1106–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Bond GR. Principles of the individual placement and support model: empirical support. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 1998;22(1):11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Rinaldi M, Perkins R, Glynn E, Montibeller T, Clenaghan M, Rutherford J. Individual placement and support: from research to practice. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2008;14(1):50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Ontario YWH. CAMH, YWHO, ACCESS Open Minds and Foundry launch first-of-its kind initiative to help young people with mental health challenges find employment: YWHO; 2021. Available from: https://youthhubs.ca/en/camh-ywho-access-open-minds-and-foundry-launch-first-of-its-kind-initiative-to-help-young-people-with-mental-health-challenges-find-employment/.

  97. Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014;24(2):192–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants for their participation in this study. We would like to thank members of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health’s Youth Engagement Initiative for their support of this study.

Funding

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (435–2019-0393).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 80 Workman Way, Toronto, ON, M6J 1H4, Canada

    Meaghen Quinlan-Davidson, Mahalia Dixon, Lisa D. Hawke, Matthew Prebeg & J. L. Henderson

  2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Meaghen Quinlan-Davidson

  3. Orygen, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Gina Chinnery

  4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Lisa D. Hawke & J. L. Henderson

  5. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Srividya Iyer

  6. Douglas Research Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Srividya Iyer

  7. Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Katherine Moxness

  8. Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Matthew Prebeg

  9. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Lehana Thabane

  10. St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Lehana Thabane

  11. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Lehana Thabane

Authors
  1. Meaghen Quinlan-Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahalia Dixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gina Chinnery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa D. Hawke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Srividya Iyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katherine Moxness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matthew Prebeg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lehana Thabane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J. L. Henderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MQD contributed to designing the research question and conducted the analysis, interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. JLH contributed to designing the research, oversaw the conduct of the study, interpreted the data, reviewed the manuscript and provided study leadership; JLH is the overall guarantor of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. L. Henderson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (124/2019). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.

Consent for publication

Consent was obtained directly from participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quinlan-Davidson, M., Dixon, M., Chinnery, G. et al. Youth not engaged in education, employment, or training: a discrete choice experiment of service preferences in Canada. BMC Public Health 24, 1402 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18877-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18877-0

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us