Rural children referred for conduct problems: evaluation of a collaborative program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural families can find it difficult to access mental health treatment for children’s conduct problems. The current program was designed to provide immediate assistance to families who faced extended waiting times in the south-eastern region of South Australia. In this collaborative project, a primary care professional delivered a telephone-guided version of a clinically based parent training program (Barkley’s Defiant Children) with program support from mental health services. The 12-week trial included 29 children aged 2–12 years who were referred for disruptive behaviour, attention-deficit hyperactivity and learning difficulties. Children were randomised to either a parent training group or a waiting list control group. Parents in the training program were generally satisfied (Therapy Attitude Inventory overall rating = 4.3 measured on a 5-point Likert scale). The main behavioural measure showed significantly better outcomes for the training program (Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (ECBI): Intensity scale (F1,27 = 11.39, P < 0.01) and Problem scale (F1,27 = 11.64, P < 0.01). For the parent training group, the mean score for the ECBI Intensity scale was reduced from above the clinical cut-off before treatment to below the cut-off after treatment. The effect sizes were 0.45 for the ECBI Intensity scale and 0.31 for the ECBI Problem scale. This suggests that the Defiant Children parent training can be adapted successfully for use by primary care professionals.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it