MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family doctors and psychologists working together: doctors' and patients' perspectives

2010· article· en· W1485778216 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Hélène Chomienne, Jean Grenier, Isabelle Gaboury, William Hogg, Pierre L.‐J. Ritchie, Elina Farmanova‐Haynes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMedicineAuditFamily medicineAnxietyMental healthIntervention (counseling)Depression (economics)Medical diagnosisPsychological interventionQuality of life (healthcare)NursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve primary care in the Canadian Primary Care Reform include integrating different professionals to the medical team. OBJECTIVE: This demonstration project explores the perceived impact on doctors and patients, of having family doctors and psychologists work together. SETTING: Two family practices of Eastern Ontario, Canada METHODS: Two board certified psychologists (one per practice) were integrated in the practices for 12 months. Psychologists conducted assessments, consultations and short-term treatments, as well as knowledge-transfer sessions for doctors. Outcome measures included referral patterns, patient outcomes, patient and provider satisfaction as well as doctors' billing. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-six participants received psychological care; most were women (68%) and between the ages of 25-64 (67%). Anxiety and depression were the most prevalent diagnoses. Reasons for referral included: psychological treatment (70%); emotional support and counselling (35%); clarification of diagnosis and case conceptualization (25%). Referrals could be for more than one reason. After intervention, 60% of patients had improvement on the outcome questionnaire-45 (OQ-45). Quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5D also improved (P < 0.001). Over 77% of patients reported increased confidence in handling their problems after treatment. Compared with their family doctor, patients felt the psychologist had more time and was better trained (75%) Doctors felt mental health problems were diagnosed more rapidly, patient care improved as well as their own knowledge of psychological management and treatment. Doctors felt it freed up their time and improved working conditions. Audit of the doctors' billing showed reduction in doctors' mental health billing. CONCLUSIONS: Having an on-site psychologist was highly satisfactory for patients and providers, resulting in improved patient care and outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.419 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207