Effects of Routine Feedback to Clinicians on Mental Health Outcomes of Youths: Results of a Randomized Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A randomized cluster controlled trial tested the hypothesis that weekly feedback to clinicians would improve the effectiveness of home-based mental health treatment received by youths in community settings. METHODS: Youths, caregivers, and clinicians at 28 sites in ten states completed assessments of the youths' symptoms and functioning every other week. Clinicians at 13 sites were provided with weekly feedback about the assessments, and clinicians at 15 sites received feedback every 90 days. Data were collected from June 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted with hierarchical linear modeling of data provided by youths, caregivers, and clinicians. RESULTS: Assessments by youths, caregivers, and clinicians indicated that youths (N=173) treated at sites where clinicians could receive weekly feedback improved faster than youths (N=167) treated at sites where clinicians did not receive weekly feedback. A dose-response analysis showed even stronger effects when clinicians viewed more feedback reports. CONCLUSIONS: Routine measurement and feedback can be used to improve outcomes for youths who receive typical home-based services in the community.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it