61 The HEADS-ED under 6: Validation of a mental health and developmental screening and triage tool
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The HEADS-ED screening and triage tool was developed for children 6 years to young adults as a communimetric mental health (MH) and addictions screener to help clinicians identify and communicate areas of need and recommended clinical care. Few clinician-administered tools identify both MH and developmental needs in young children under 6. From a review of milestone tools and in consultation with paediatricians, psychiatrists, and family physicians, the HEADS-ED Under 6 is a MH and developmental screening and triage tool that was developed to screen and flag functional impairment and action required in several areas, including: Home & caregivers, Eating & sleeping, Activities & peers, Development /speech/language/motor, Safety, Emotions & behaviours and Discharge & current resources (see http://heads-ed.com for more background and access to both tools available in English and French). Objectives Our objectives were to examine: 1) feasibility of implementing the new HEADS-ED Under 6 screening and triage tool in community and hospital settings, 2) clinical utility of the tool to assist with clinical decision making, and 3) validity of the tool against a comprehensive assessment. Design/Methods We conducted two implementation and validation studies to examine uptake of the tool and how the tool assists in clinical referral decisions to more specialized and intensive services at 2 sites. For our initial validation study, we piloted and validated the tool at a community MH agency in Ontario for children under the age of 6 from November 2019- March 2021 (N=566). For our cross-validation study, we examined how the tool was implemented within a regional coordinated access service housed in a paediatric hospital in Ontario from June 2021- August 2023 (N=589). Results For our initial validation study, the HEADS-ED Under 6 was widely used by intake workers (95%, N = 536/566) to communicate children’s MH and developmental needs (Figure 1) and assisted in recommending services of varying intensity. The tool showed good concordance with the InterRAI Early Years assessment in similar domains requiring no action (61.1% to 81.6%), requiring action but not immediate (49.2% to 88.0%) and requiring immediate action (66.7% to 100%) for children under 4 years old (p's <.001). Three clinical domains (Eating & sleeping, Development/speech/language/motor, and Emotions & behaviours) also independently predicted an urgent care recommendation (p's < .001). For our cross-validation study, the tool was used for all 589 intake appointments, and 96.4% (N = 568/589) had a level of need documented. HEADS-ED Under 6 clinical domains (.24-.38) and total scores (.52) were significantly correlated with level of need (p<.001). Higher HEADS-ED Under 6 total scores helped intake workers decide on more intense services based on level of need (p<.001; Figure 2). ROC analyses (AUC = .807, SE = 68.5% sensitivity, 79.5% specificity) confirmed a total score of 6 or above helped triage to more targeted and intense services. Conclusion The HEADS-ED Under 6 is a brief, straight-forward, and valid screening and triage tool that can be used by intake workers, physicians, and paediatricians to guide their interview in several areas of MH and development, communicate the severity of the child’s MH and developmental needs, and assist with determining level of need for services. When a HEADS-ED Under 6 total score reaches ≥6, clinicians should advocate for more intensive services when making MH service referrals.
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 | 0,052 | 0,066 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
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 ».