Are Mental Health Services for Children Distributed According to Needs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to determine whether publicly funded mental health services and resources available in 4 large regions in the province of Quebec were distributed according to the mental health needs of children aged 6 to 14 years and 2) to assess whether the variations in mental health services and resources across the 4 regions had changed over a 5-year period. METHODS: Indicators of need according to the child's parent (presence of mental disorder, measure of adaptation, and perception of need for help) from an epidemiologic survey of 2400 noninstitutionalized children were compared with both in-school and community professional resources and with physician and hospital services in 1992-1993. Resource and service data were also collected for 1997-1998. Resource and service data came from professional colleges and government administrative databases. RESULTS: No significant regional differences were found for need indicators, but there were large discrepancies in mental health resources and services in 1992-1993. Differences in professional resources were largest for special education teachers in the school system and for psychiatrists in the community. The regional differences in resources and services were as large in 1997-1998 as they were in 1992-1993. CONCLUSIONS: Despite universal health care in Quebec and a government mental health policy stressing equity of access, the available mental health resources for children aged 6 to 14 years are not distributed across regions according to needs. More evidence-based planning is required, specifically using epidemiologic survey data, to match resources to needs and to monitor changes over time.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".