MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W84442730

Primary Prevention in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry-An Overview

2000· article· en· W84442730 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Y. C. Lai

Notice bibliographique

RevueHong Kong journal of psychiatry · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueChild and Adolescent Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChild and adolescent psychiatryContext (archaeology)Mental healthPsychiatryMedicineChild developmentPsychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Although primary prevention has been a concern among child mental health professionals for many years, progress in the field has been slow and is fraught with conceptual and methodological difficulties. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the topic, highlight some of the more consistent findings, and make suggestions about future development. While it is now generally agreed that intensive primary prevention programmes targeting high risk pre-school children and starting early in the child's life can be effective, much less is known about programmes targeting older children. There is also growing evidence that the participation of the child alone in these programmes--without changing the social context with which the child is in touch everyday--is insufficient to produce sustained improvements. Further development in the field should be guided by a better understanding of the risks and protective mechanisms, and how these affect the child's outcome. In Hong Kong, where child psychiatric morbidity is comparable to that of the West and there are only limited treatment resources, primary prevention needs to be systematically developed as a matter of urgency. Key words: Child Psychiatry; Effectiveness; Primary Prevention; Protective Mechanisms INTRODUCTION It is now well recognised that the community prevalence of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders ranges between 15% and 20%, the commonest of which are disruptive behaviour disorders and emotional disorders. However, few of these children are known to either mental health or social work professionals--1 in 10 in the Isle of Wight study1 and 1 in 6 in the Ontario Child Health Study.2 The remaining majority are not below 'case' level, and intervention is warranted. Many factors contribute to the discrepancy between those in need and those receiving help. The lack of resources is only one factor and, even if treatment for all those in need could be offered, not all children and their families would be willing to accept mental health services. Moreover, those willing to receive treatment may not be the most severely impaired. (3) Once a disorder is established, there is a great deal of suffering for the child, the family, and others in the wider social context such as peers, teachers, and society in general. While promising treatment strategies, with at least demonstrable short-term benefits, are now accumulating for some disorders, it is also clear that not all children will respond. (4,5) Motivation of the family and the degree of psychopathology within the family are crucial factors for predicting continuation and success with treatment. Children do not grow out of their problems and it is well known that continuities exist between childhood and adult psychopathologies, particularly for antisocial behaviours, conduct disorder, (6) and depression. (7) Rutter pointed out that continuities exist not only at the symptom level but also in the individual's style of dealing with life circumstances, which increase the risk of morbidity.6 Nevertheless, continuities are not inevitable, and can be altered by subsequent positive experiences. In light of these concerns, the possibility of preventing some of the more common disorders has been an issue with mental health professionals for many years. Unfortunately, progress in the field has been slow. Although much has been published on the topic, there are relatively few well-established findings. Reasons for the slow progress are the difficulties associated with the planning and evaluation of preventive research. Firstly, if primary prevention is defined as intervention before the onset of symptoms, the arbitrary nature of the thresholds for diagnosing some of the disorders makes it hard to distinguish between primary and secondary preventive efforts. Secondly, a programme's stated targets and goals may not be backed by sound theories, for although risk factors, and more recently, protective factors can be readily listed, the underlying mechanisms leading to dysfunction or protection are still poorly understood. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0080,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,386
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHong Kong journal of psychiatryMême sujetChild and Adolescent HealthTravaux en français237 207