Pilot Testing of a Questionnaire for the Evaluation of Mental Health Services in Family Health Team Clinics in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family health teams (FHTs), regarded today as a premier model of provision of primary care services in North America, were introduced in 2004 to improve traditionally fragmented primary healthcare in Ontario. Physicians and healthcare providers from various disciplines team up under the same roof in FHTs to provide and coordinate care and to ensure adequate access to and continuity of care. Because many Canadians with mental health problems consult family physicians in primary care, routine evaluation of the delivery of primary mental health care services in FHTs is becoming important. The authors' goal was to develop and test an evaluation tool (containing a questionnaire for patients and a questionnaire for providers) for mental health services provided in FHTs with a focus on accessibility, availability, quality, continuity of care and coordination of services. They developed and pilot tested an English-French tailored evaluation instrument in several FHTs in South East, Champlain and North East Local Health Integration Networks across Ontario. A convenience sample of English- and French-speaking healthcare providers and patients using mental health services was recruited. Provider and patient questionnaires were developed and pilot-tested with 12 providers and 10 clients. Patient reviewers rated the patient questionnaire consistently as "good" or "very good." Provider reviewers found the provider questionnaire to be important and timely and the questions to be adequate and interesting. This instrument evaluates, from both the patient and provider perspectives, whether mental health services are structured to meet expectations set for FHTs, and enables healthcare providers, administrators and policy makers to learn about the benefits and the deficiencies of mental health care delivered through these clinics. This instrument can also be used to enhance future research and evaluation of FHTs. Further validation effort will be required to establish its validity and reliability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".