Mental health services for children and youth: a survey of physicians' knowledge, attitudes and use of telehealth services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural physicians in Ontario, whose practice included children, were surveyed on their awareness, attitudes and use of telemental health services for children and young people in their region. Of 95 rural physicians, 70 completed and returned the telehealth section of the survey (74% response rate). The survey comprised 14 questions. Only 27% of responders were aware of the available videoconferencing services. The proportion of physicians who reported having referred patients for the various mental health services through videoconferencing was 0-24%. The proportion of physicians who reported that they would refer patients through videoconferencing was 55-92%. Reduced travel time and care provided closer to home were seen as the primary benefits of referring patients to mental health services through videoconferencing. Unclear referral patterns and technology compromises were seen as limitations of referring patients to videoconferencing. Access to rural populations and improved access to patients were seen as benefits to practice, and undeveloped remuneration procedures as the primary limitation. Promotion may be important to successful implementation of telemental health services for children and young people.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".