Child and Adolescent Mental Health Policy and Plans in Canada: An Analytical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Child and adolescent mental disorders are common, with a substantial disease burden, yet services for young people are nationally inadequate. As services should be based on policies and (or) plans, we analyzed the availability and content of child and adolescent mental health policies and plans in all provinces and territories. METHOD: The World Health Organization (WHO) framework for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Policy and Plans was applied. RESULTS: Four provinces in Canada have a child and adolescent mental health policy and (or) plan. The other provinces do not have a policy or plan in place, or else try to integrate these components into existing mental health strategies. Among the policies and plans that exist, there is substantial variability regarding content as well as degree of adherence to the WHO template. Five essential content areas: legislation and human rights, information systems, quality improvement, improving access to and use of psychotropics, and human resource development and training are poorly or very poorly addressed in existing policies and (or) plans. CONCLUSION: This lack of specific policy and (or) plans for child and adolescent mental health care and the variability of content in plans that exist may help explain why child and adolescent mental health services are poorly developed across Canada. We suggest that a national child and adolescent mental health policy framework be developed for Canada so that the provinces and territories may be encouraged to create or amend their current child and adolescent mental health frameworks in a manner that may enhance national cohesion and commonly addresses service needs in this population.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".