How collaborative mental health care for competitive and high-performance athletes is implemented: A novel interdisciplinary case study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Collaborative care is considered a best practice in mental health care delivery and has recently been applied in high-performance sport to address athletes' mental health needs. However, how the collaborative process unfolds in practice in the sport setting has not yet been well documented. The purpose of this illustrative case study was to investigate a novel interdisciplinary approach used within the Canadian Centre for Mental Health and Sport (CCMHS) to provide mental health care to clients. Focusing on 'how' the approach was implemented, the aim of the study was to provide insight into the collaboration that occurred between mental performance and mental health practitioners to provide care to a high-performance athlete over an 11-month period, as well as factors facilitating and impeding the team's collaboration. The case involved three practitioners and a 16-year-old female athlete experiencing chronic pain, low mood, and elevated anxiety. Methods: In the first phase of the data collection process, each practitioner engaged in guided reflective journaling to describe the case and reflect on their practice and outcomes. During the second phase, practitioners co-created a case timeline to describe the collaborative process using clinical documents. Lastly, practitioners participated in collaborative reflection to collectively reflect more broadly on collaboration practice occurring within the CCMHS and Canadian sport system. Results: The data depict a complex care process in which the necessity and intensity of collaboration was primarily driven by the client's symptoms and needs. A content analysis showed that collaboration was facilitated by the CCMHS' secure online platform and tools, as well as individual practitioner and team characteristics. Collaboration was, however, hindered by logistical challenges, overlapping scopes of practice, and client characteristics. Discussion: Overall, there were more perceived benefits than drawbacks to providing collaborative care. While flexibility was required during the process, deliberate and systematic planning helped to ensure success. Factors such as interdependence of collaborative practice, complementarity of practice within care teams, compensation for collaboration, in-person versus virtual delivery, and intricacies of care coordination should be further examined in the future to optimize collaborative mental health care in sport.
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 | 0,010 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,025 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».