Helpseeking of immigrant and native born parents: a qualitative study from a montreal child day hospital.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study of the perceptions of native-born Canadian and immigrant parents whose children attended a psychiatric day hospital for significant behavior impairment, focused on parental helpseeking pathways, explanatory models of mental health, and referral or access experiences. METHODS: A sample of ten immigrant and ten native born parents were recruited for semi-structured interviews analyzed thematically to discern similarities and differences between the two groups. RESULTS: The immigrant group more frequently reported barriers and delays in accessing mental health services. They often reported lack of primary care physicians and language barriers. They were less likely to have a biomedical perspective or to use specialized resources for their children prior to admission. Both groups reported apprehension about medication trials, though the immigrant parents were less likely to agree to psychopharmacological treatment. None of the professionals treating parents for mental health problems initiated referral of their impaired children. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the qualitative analysis of this sample, native born single parents and immigrant parents may feel especially vulnerable to lack of social support. Adjustments of primary care, schools and community resources, as well as promoting best practices of culturally competent child mental health care, may increase access and willingness to pursue treatment in both groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".