Collaborative mental health services in primary care systems in Latin America: contextualized evaluation needs and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study examined Latin American evaluation needs regarding the development of a collaborative mental health care (CMHC) evaluation framework as seen by local key health-care leaders and professionals. Potential implementation challenges and opportunities were also identified. METHODS: This multisite research study used an embedded mixed methods approach in three public health networks in Mexico, Nicaragua and Chile. Local stakeholders participated: decision-makers in key informant interviews, front-line clinicians in focus groups and other stakeholders through a survey. The analysis was conducted within site and then across sites. RESULTS: A total of 22 semi-structured interviews, three focus groups and 27 questionnaires (52% response rate) were conducted. Participants recognized a strong need to evaluate different areas of CMHC in Latin America, including access, types and quality of services, human resources and outcomes related to mental disorders, including addiction. A priority was to evaluate collaboration within the health system, including the referral system. Issues of feasibility, including the weaknesses of information systems, were also identified. CONCLUSION: Local stakeholders strongly supported the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework for CMHC in Latin America and cited several dimensions and contextual factors critical for inclusion. Implementation must allow flexibility and adaptation to the local context.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".