Type of community as confounding variable in the satisfaction of rural child and youth mental health clinicians: implications for evidence‐based workforce development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to present findings from a study soliciting the perspectives of child and youth mental health clinicians practising in rural/remote settings in British Columbia, Canada. Satisfaction is assessed in four areas: lifestyle, practice, preparation for practice, and fit of organizational standards. Design/methodology/approach An online survey using a variety of closed and open‐ended questions was administered to clinicians practising in four distinct settings: small rural, large rural, small remote, and large remote. Closed questions were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 while open ended questions were analyzed using manual open and axial coding. Findings Findings indicate moderate to high levels of satisfaction in all areas. Satisfaction with rural lifestyle and professional practice was strongest for clinicians recruited from within the community. However, clinicians from small remote communities indicated much lower levels of satisfaction in all four areas. Originality/value The study underscores the importance of understanding the diversity of rural practice settings in mental health workforce development. In particular it highlights the need for greater attention to evidence based approaches to support mental health practitioners in small remote settings.
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 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".