MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100946446

Adolescent care. Part 2: communication and referral practices of family physicians caring for adolescents with mental health problems.

2006· article· en· W2100946446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brigitte Maheux, Andrée Gilbert, Nancy Haley, Jean‐Yves Frappier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthReferralMedicineFamily medicineDepression (economics)PsychiatryPerceptionPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To document with whom family physicians communicate when evaluating adolescents with mental health problems, to whom they refer these adolescents, and their knowledge and perceptions of the accessibility of mental health services in their communities. DESIGN: Mailed survey completed anonymously. SETTING: Province of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: All general practitioners who reported seeing at least 10 adolescents weekly (n = 255) among 707 physicians who participated in a larger survey on adolescent mental health care in general practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether family physicians communicated with people (such as parents, teachers, or school nurses) when evaluating adolescents with mental health problems. Number of adolescents referred to mental health services during the last year. Knowledge of mental health services in the community and perception of their accessibility. RESULTS: When asked about the last 5 adolescents seen with symptoms of depression or suicidal thoughts, depending on type of practice, 9% to 19% of physicians reported routinely communicating with parents, and 22% to 32% reported not contacting parents. Between 16% and 43% of physicians referred 5 adolescents or fewer to mental health services during a 12-month period. Most practitioners reported being adequately informed about the mental health services available in their local community clinics. Few physicians knew about services offered by private-practice psychologists, child psychiatrists, or community groups. Respondents perceived mental health services in community clinics (CLSCs) as the most accessible and child psychiatrists as the least accessible services. CONCLUSION: Few physicians routinely contact parents when evaluating adolescents with serious mental health problems. Collaboration between family physicians and mental health professionals could be improved. The few referrals made to mental health professionals might indicate barriers to mental health services that could mean many adolescents do not receive the care they need. The lack of access to mental health services, notably to child psychiatrists, reported by most respondents could explain why some physicians choose not to refer adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207