Outcome progress letter types: parent and physician preferences for letters from pediatric mental health services.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine health care professional and parental preferences for receiving progress letters from a pediatric mental health program between a traditional text-only format and a version in which information was presented using graphs and tables with limited text. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Parents (n = 98) of children who received treatment from and health care professionals (n = 74) who referred patients to the Strongest Families Program (formerly the Family Help Program) were eligible. Most of the health care professionals were family practitioners (83.8%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preference between 2 letters that contained the same content (including progress in the program, results from a questionnaire, and resolved and ongoing problems) in different formats--one using text only, the other using graphs as well as text. RESULTS: In total, 83.8% of health professionals and 76.5% of parents indicated that they preferred to receive feedback in letters containing information in graphical format. Background and demographic information did not predict preferences. Parents preferred to receive progress letters at the beginning, midway through, and at the end of treatment, and health professionals preferred to receive progress letters at the beginning and end of treatment. CONCLUSION: When receiving progress letters from a pediatric mental health program, health care professionals and parents preferred to receive letters that used graphs to help convey information.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".