Unmet needs in the community:can existing services meet them?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This prospective study of community cases examined: (a) needs for care; (b) whether services meet the needs; and (c) personal factors associated with unmet needs. METHOD: Two separate 'Needs for Care Assessment Schedule Community version' evaluations identified 38 subjects with No Need (NN), 19 with Met Needs (MN) and 25 with Unmet Needs (UNM). Other instruments included the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-Abridged Version (DISSA) and repeated measures of symptoms and social functioning. RESULTS: (a) Cases did not equate needs. (b) Services utilization did not equate having met needs. (c) Respondents with UNM were more likely to present high rates of lifetime DSM-II-R disorders, no marital relationship ever, no employment, high rates of life events, and physical or sexual abuse in childhood. They have worse outcome in terms of distress and social functioning. CONCLUSION: Personal factors may prevent respondents from seeking, engaging and benefiting from treatment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".