The Impact of Parents’ Illness Representations on Treatment Acceptability for Child Mental Health Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To measure parents’ representations of their child’s mental health problems, the validity of the Parents’ Illness Perception Questionnaire–Children’s Mental Health (PIPQ-CMH), a modified version of The Illness Perception Questionnaire–Revised, was established to explore the link between parents’ representations and (a) child problem severity, (b) parental adjustment, and (c) treatment acceptability. Parents ( N = 487) of 4- to 15-year-old children (68% boys) from five children’s mental health centers across Southwestern Ontario, Canada completed the PIPQ-CMH along with additional measures to assess validity. The Brief Child and Family Phone Interview was used to assess problem severity, the Depression and Anxiety Stress Scale was used to assess parental adjustment, and an adapted version of the Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire was used to assess the acceptability of five types of psychological treatment. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the PIPQ-CMH was a reasonable fit to the data. Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest reliabilities were above .70. Significant relationships were found between parents’ perceptions (e.g., timeline, controllability, consequences, illness coherence, emotional representations) and child problem severity, parental adjustment, and treatment acceptability. Preliminary construct validity exists for the PIPQ-CMH as a measure of parents’ representations of child mental health problems. This measure should help to inform the impact of parent representations on the treatment process.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".