Parents’ help‐seeking processes for early childhood mental health problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health problems affect up to one in five children and adolescents. Yet less than one quarter will access the appropriate professional help. This study explored parents' help-seeking processes for young children with mental health problems. METHODS: The present study followed up 442 6-year-old children of an original 733 infants (60% retention) who had been recruited from routine universal maternal and child health well-child appointments. An adapted help-seeking model was applied to a subsample of 84 children with mental health problems. RESULTS: Less than one third of parents whose child had a mental health problem accessed any type of professional service for their child's mental health. The majority of parents had highly positive help-seeking intentions, however, only one third of parents whose child had a mental health problem recognised their child's behavioural difficulties. Parents with more positive help-seeking intentions were more likely to access professional care for their child in need than parents who felt ambivalent about seeking help. Parent recognition that their child's behaviour was more difficult than average was a key barrier to accessing professional help when their child had a mental health problem. CONCLUSIONS: While most parents have positive help-seeking intentions, professionals aiding parent recognition of their young child's mental health difficulties could facilitate early intervention for children's mental health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".