113 Patient navigation for improving outcomes in child and youth development and mental health: A prospective cohort study comparing patients who did and did not receive navigator services after program referral
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Mental health and developmental conditions are common among Canadian children and youth and require multiple supports in both clinical and community settings. However, many families may find it difficult to access all of the appropriate services available to them. Thus, pediatric patient navigator programs have been developed to help families connect to resources that will support their child’s diagnosis. However, little is known about what barriers may prevent families from actually connecting with the patient navigator following an appropriate referral. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate a Canadian Pediatric Patient Navigation Program (PPNP) for children with a formal or provisional mental health or developmental diagnosis. The primary objective was to determine which physician-identified barriers may prevent families from connecting with the pediatric patient navigator (PPN) once an appropriate referral has been made. Of those who did not connect, we were interested in families who booked but did not attend their appointment (i.e., no-show) and families who were unable to be contacted by administrative staff to schedule an appointment despite contact attempts (i.e., no-contact). Design/Methods This prospective cohort study included patients referred to a Canadian PPNP between October 1st 2017 and October 31st 2018. Data was collected via standardized PPNP referral forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using chi-square tests of independence. Results Of those who met the inclusion criteria (n=524), 78% connected with the PPN and 22% did not connect with the PPN. Of those who did not connect, 41% were classified as no-show and 40% were classified as no-contact. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of sex, diagnosis and time since diagnosis. Those who connected with the PPN were significantly more likely to have a settlement barrier identified compared to those who did not connect (29% vs. 18%, p<.05). Those who no-showed were significantly more likely to have parental mental health identified as a barrier compared to those who connected (15% vs. 5%, p<.05). Finally, families were significantly more likely to have a language/literacy barrier identified if there was no-contact compared to if they no-showed (35% vs. 15%, p<.05). Conclusion Parental mental health issues may prevent families from showing up to booked appointments, highlighting the importance of ensuring concurrent parental mental health support. Additionally, language/literacy barriers are a key factor contributing to the inability of administrative staff to contact families, highlighting the need for interpreter services to aid in booking appointments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».