Primary Care Referral of Children With Psychosocial Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine primary care provider referral patterns for patients with psychosocial problems and to understand the factors that influence whether a mental health referral is made. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Child Behavior Study data collected during 1994-1997 from background survey of providers, visit survey of providers and parents, and follow-up survey of parents. SETTING: Two hundred six primary care offices in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. PATIENTS: Four thousand twelve of 21 150 patients aged 4 to 15 years in the Child Behavior Study with a clinician-identified psychosocial problem. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Referral for psychosocial problem at index visit and reported follow-up with mental health care provider within 6 months. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty (16%) of 4012 patients with psychosocial problems were referred at the initial visit. In multivariate analysis, significant factors associated with likelihood of referral included patient factors (severity, type of problem, academic difficulties, prior mental health service use) and family factors (mental health referral of parent); however, none of the provider factors were significant. Clinicians reported frequent barriers to referral and mental health services in the general background survey; however, these factors were rarely reported as influences on individual management decisions. Only 61% of referred families reported that their child saw a mental health care provider in the 6-month period after the initial primary care referral. CONCLUSIONS: Most psychosocial problems are initially managed in primary care without referral. However, referral is an important component of care for patients with severe problems, and many families are not effectively engaged in mental health services, even after a referral is made.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".