Process Evaluation of an Early-Intervention Program for Mood and Anxiety Disorders Among Older Adolescents and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research to determine the best approach for providing early intervention for mood and anxiety disorders is imperative. The authors describe a process evaluation of an early-intervention program for transition-age youths with mood or anxiety disorders. METHODS: Causal and logic models for pathways to care for the program, as well as descriptive data from 548 participating youths, are presented. Follow-up measures of functional improvement are reported. RESULTS: Diagnostic characterization, symptom severity, and functional impairment of participants indicated that the model selected an appropriate catchment population without creating excessive overinclusion. Self-referred youths reported greater anxiety and substance use. Acceptance by the program was predictive of greater follow-through with treatment. Several variables, including frequent lifetime marijuana use, predicted loss to follow-up. At follow-up, youths were significantly functionally improved. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation indicated that the model provided appropriate early intervention for youths with mood or anxiety disorders without causing excessive overinclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".