Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of Mental Health Concerns (MHC) among parents whose children are accessing services from a mental health outpatient center was explored, along with what helps and hinders the coping of those parents identified as having diagnosed or suspected MHC. Participants were selected based on interviews with their child’s mental health clinician who identified 71% of the selected families as having at least one parent with diagnosed or suspected MHC. Semi-structured phone interviews with 28 participants in those families were then conducted. Given the diversity and problem with language depicting mental illness, MHC was the rubric adopted for this paper as it was believed to be less of a problematic label. A qualitative research design provided a deeper understanding into the resources that parents utilize to help them cope, the challenges that make it more difficult for them to do well, and the supports they wish they had. There was a high correlation between clinician perception and participant self-report in indicating the presence of MHC. Resources revealed as helpful to parent coping included the assistance of counselling and medical professionals, community and family supports, and medication. Hindrances to parent coping included lack of finances, parenting stress, and difficulties related to MHC. Parents wished there were more services and supports available across professional and community domains. Findings may provide insight for family centered, integrative program ideas and supports that will increase family coping when both parents and children are dealing with MHC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".