Child and Youth Mental Health Service Referrals: Physicians' Knowledge of Mental Health Services and Perceptions of a Centralized Intake Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey to assess physicians' attitudes and knowledge of mental health services and centralized intake services for mental health. METHOD: A survey consisting of 51 questions was sent to 735 physicians in active practice within the catchment area of a regional centralized intake for child and youth mental health services. The survey was conducted during the summer of 2006. RESULTS: Of 735 eligible physicians, 388 completed and returned the survey (52.8% response rate). The majority of physicians were aware of mental health services offered by their hospital. Physicians reported lower confidence levels for delivering counselling and psychopharmacological treatments for mental health. Furthermore, over 72% indicated that they did not feel they had time in practice to provide mental health counselling. Over 65% of physicians reported that mental health referrals should have appropriate/defined criteria. The majority (92%) of physicians had referred to specialized mental health services provided by their hospital. With respect to centralized intake services, 57.2% of physicians indicated they were aware of the service and 73.9% said it should be continued. However, only 34% reported satisfaction with the centralized intake referral service. Predictors of satisfaction with the service were satisfaction with mental health feedback and satisfaction with response time of the centralized intake service. CONCLUSIONS: Physician confidence levels in providing mental health services vary greatly. While doctors favour a centralized intake for mental health services, their satisfaction with such a service somewhat depends on variables beyond the control of the centralized intake, such as wait times and feedback from mental health providers.
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) | 0.001 | 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".