Can general practice help address youth mental health? A retrospective cross‐sectional study in Dublin's south inner city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: With general practice potentially having an important role in early intervention of mental and substance use disorders among young people, we aim to explore this issue by determining the prevalence of psychological problems and general practice/health service utilization among young people attending general practice. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of patients attending three general practices in Dublin city. RESULTS: Among a sample of young people (mostly women, 44% general medical services (GMS) eligible), we observed considerable contact with general practice, both lifetime and for the 2 years of the study. The mean consultation rate was 3.9 consultations in 2 years and psychosocial issues (most commonly stress/anxiety and depression) were documented in 35% of cases. Identification of psychosocial issues was associated with GMS eligibility, three or more doctor consultations, and documentation of smoking and drinking status. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial issues are common among young people attending general practice and more work on their epidemiology and further identification in general practice are advocated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".