MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126682572 · doi:10.1136/ebn.8.4.125

Parents of young people with mental health problems experienced a deskilling and had to learn to reskill themselves

2005· letter· en· W2126682572 on OpenAlexaff
Jeannette LeGris

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthCoping (psychology)PsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harden J. “Uncharted waters”: the experience of parents of young people with mental health problems. Qual Health Res 2005;15:207–23.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are the experiences of parents who care for a young person with mental health problems? Qualitative study using semistructured, indepth interviews. UK. 25 parents (18 mothers, 7 fathers) of 18 young people (13–16 y of age) with mental health problems. All families were white and had various socioeconomic backgrounds. Parents were interviewed about the following topics: the nature of their child’s problem; relationships with health professionals; implications for their lifestyle, health, employment, and education; impact on the family; and coping. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed qualitatively using an interpretive inductive approach. Parental deskilling: (1) Not being listened to by the medical profession. Parents felt their role was challenged because they were unfamiliar with mental health problems and had to rely on experts for explanations. When they sought help to overcome their inexperience, it was not always forthcoming, which led to feelings of isolation, abandonment, and self doubt. Their confidence was undermined when they were … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DQualitative%2BHealth%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DQual%2BHealth%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DHarden%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D15%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D207%26rft.epage%253D223%26rft.atitle%253D%2522Uncharted%2BWaters%2522%253A%2BThe%2BExperience%2Bof%2BParents%2Bof%2BYoung%2BPeople%2BWith%2BMental%2BHealth%2BProblems%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F1049732304269677%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15611204%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1049732304269677&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15611204&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F4%2F125.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226368200005&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207