Measuring the quality of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health collaborative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examines the potential utility of the Perception of Interprofessional Collaboration Model and the shared decision-making scales in evaluating the quality of partnership in child mental health collaborative care. METHODS: Ninety-six primary care professionals working with children and youth responded to an internet survey which included the Perception of Interprofessional Collaboration Model scale (PINCOM-Q) and an adapted version of a shared decision-making scale (Échelle de confort décisionnel, partenaire-ECD-P). The perceptions of child mental health professionals were compared with those of other professionals working with children. RESULTS: The PINCOM-Q and the ECD-P scales had an excellent internal consistency and they were moderately correlated. Child mental health professionals' Individual Interprofessional Collaboration scores from the PINCOM-Q individual aspects subscale were better than that of other child professionals. CONCLUSION: These scales may be interesting instruments to measure the quality of partnership in child mental health collaborative care settings. Research needs to replicate these findings and to determine whether the quality of collaboration is a predictor of mental health outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".