The use of videoconferencing for mental health services in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utilization of telemental health (TMH) services in Finland was surveyed in 2006. In total, 135 health-care units provided responses. Eighty-four responses were received from primary care units (health-care centres and clinics) and eight from other clinics, in all hospital districts. The overall rate of TMH consultations was 4 per 100,000 population. The highest TMH consultation per population ratio, 22 per 100,000, was in northern Finland. Most of the sites used telepsychiatry services for less than 10% of clinical outpatient services. The sites with over 20% utilization of clinical TMH services from all psychiatric consultations were all rural health centres. Compared with Finland, the utilization rates of TMH were higher in Canada; that might be due to differences between the countries in the organization of mental health services in primary and specialized care. In Finland TMH consultations made up only a very small proportion of all mental health services. The use of TMH was particularly common in remote areas; however, there were many rural centres that did not utilize clinical TMH. TMH was widely utilized for continuing and medical education.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".