Parental Preferences for Mental Health Screening of Youths From a Multinational Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Screening youths for mental disorders may assist in prevention, promote early identification, and be associated with reduced related lifetime impairment and distress. Objective: To assess parents' and caregivers' comfort with and preferences for pediatric mental health screening and factors associated with these preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an online survey available from July 11 to 14, 2021, through Prolific Academic. Analyses were conducted from November 2021 to November 2022. The survey was administered to English-speaking parents and caregivers in the US, UK, Canada, and 16 other countries who were aged 21 years or older and had at least 1 child aged 5 to 21 years living at home. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were parental preferences regarding content, implementation, and review of the findings of pediatric mental health screening. Parental comfort with screening topics was reported on a 6-point Likert scale with 6 indicating highest comfort. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with parental comfort levels. Results: Of 1200 survey responses requested, data were collected from 1136 participants (94.7%). The final sample meeting the inclusion criteria comprised 972 parents and caregivers aged 21 to 65 years (mean [SD] age, 39.4 [6.9] years; 606 [62.3%] female). A total of 631 participants (64.9%) supported annual mental health screening for their child, and 872 (89.7%) preferred reviewing the screening results with professional staff (eg, physicians). Participants reported significantly decreased comfort with child self-report compared with parent-report screening assessments (b = -0.278; SE = 0.009; P < .001), although they were generally comfortable with both options. Despite slight variations based on country of residence, screening topic, and child's age, participants were generally comfortable discussing all 21 screening topics on the survey. The greatest comfort was with sleep problems (mean [SE] score, 5.30 [0.03]); the least comfort was with firearms (mean [SE] score, 4.71 [0.05]), gender identity (mean [SE] score, 4.68 [0.05]), suicidality (mean [SE] score, 4.62 [0.05]), and substance use or abuse (mean [SE] score, 4.78 [0.05]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of parents and caregivers, parent-reported and child self-reported mental health screening in primary care settings was supported by the majority of the sample, although comfort levels differed according to various factors (eg, screening topic). Participants preferred to discuss screening results with professional health care staff. In addition to parental need for expert guidance, the study findings highlight the growing awareness of child mental health needs and the importance of addressing mental health concerns early via regular mental health screenings.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».