Pediatric Mood and Anxiety Syndromes in Primary Care: Who Gets Identified?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To seek clues to the enhancement of primary care management by (i) Determining how often and in whom primary care clinicians in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada identify pediatric mood or anxiety syndromes; (ii) Determining which clinical and demographic features predict higher rates of identification; (iii) Describing assessment methods used. METHODS: This report uses the database of the multi-site Child Behavior Study. This cross-sectional study involved 206 primary care practices in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada; 395 clinicians and 20,861 primary care attenders aged 4-15 years. Clinicians completed a visit questionnaire addressing presence and type of psychosocial problems and how assessed. Parents completed a questionnaire addressing family demographics, child symptoms (Pediatric Symptom Checklist) and functioning, and child service use. RESULTS: Clinicians identified psychosocial problems on 17.9% of visits, but mood or anxiety syndromes on only 3.3%, most commonly in children judged to have co-morbid behavioral syndromes, of whom the majority (66.7%) already had contact with specialized mental health. Neither parental concerns about mood and anxiety symptoms nor clinician familiarity with the patient were major predictors of identification. When making a diagnosis of a pure internalizing syndrome (i.e., without a co-morbid behavioral syndrome) clinicians rarely used standardized tools or school reports. CONCLUSIONS: Neither screening for nor diagnosis of mood and anxiety syndromes is a routine part of primary care of children and adolescents. Efforts to improve care must include practical, validated screening procedures to enhance assessment for mood and anxiety syndromes, particularly among children in whom primary care clinicians identify psychosocial problems.
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) | 0.000 | 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".