Lack of mental well-being in 15-year-olds: an undisclosed iceberg?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people suffer from psychiatric symptoms and illness, and the frequency of both may be higher than currently is recognized. The frequency with which young people consult GPs with emotional problems is not established. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the number of 15-year-olds who consult their GP directly or indirectly with psychiatric symptoms or illness. METHODS: A two part survey was carried out involving (i) general practice casenote review; and (ii) questionnaires self-report. The subjects comprised all adolescents aged 15 years from 34 randomly selected general practices and a randomly selected subsample of these adolescents. The main outcome measures were a purpose-designed data collection sheet, General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and a purpose-designed self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: In phase 1, the general practice casenotes of 2359 adolescents were examined. Five per cent of subjects were identified as attending the GP with mental health problems; 1% had attempted suicide during the year. In phase 2, 99 subjects returned completed self-report questionnaires. Although over a quarter (26%) were rated as GHQ-12 'cases' and approximately half reported having felt 'sad, unhappy or low' or 'anxious or worried' in the previous year, only one subject reported attending his/her GP with any of these concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Fifteen-year-olds rarely consult their GP about their emotional well-being, yet, with the GHQ-12, the self-reported rate of psychiatric morbidity was nearly seven times greater than that suggested by these same subjects' medical records. Although the majority of adolescents consult their GP throughout the course of a year, those with mental health problems, including those who attempt suicide, are indistinguishable in the frequency of their GP consultations from adolescents without mental health problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".