New directions in mental health practice with older people: Canadian strategies for mental health reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and objective. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to problems in the Canadian health system that must be overcome if Canada is to ensure that older people can access the services they need. Background. Projections suggest that 20% of Canadians will be aged 65+ by 2021. If current prevalence rates for mental illness continue, this will result in a significant increase in the number of older Canadians with or at risk for mental illness and mental health problems. Design. Findings of the final report of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology are summarized and related to the intended role and primary strategy of the proposed Canadian Mental Health Commission. Methods. The relevance of the Interprofessional Education for Collaborative Patient-Centred Practice initiative launched by Health Canada is then considered in light of the intention that the Commission adopt collaboration with relevant stakeholders as its primary strategy for achieving mental health reform. Conclusions. Fragmentation in service delivery must be overcome if older Canadians are to receive age appropriate mental health services when and where they need them. Yet there is little evidence that the degree of interprofessional collaboration required can be achieved. Relevance to clinical practice The reforms advocated by the Senate Committee are widely embraced but evidence is needed on how mental health and other professionals can best learn to work together in the interests of older people and other mental health consumers.
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".