Availability of services for parents living with mental disorders: A province-wide survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that parents living with mental disorders have limited access to parenting support. We conducted a survey of mental health agencies in Ontario, Canada, to establish a benchmark from which progress in service availability can be evaluated, and to identify any barriers to availability in terms of program location and parent gender. METHOD: We surveyed 119 directors of community and inpatient mental health service agencies (54% response rate) and directors of 80 different agencies to which they referred clients for parenting support services (56% response rate). Respondents indicated the types of parenting support services they provided and the clientele they served. RESULTS: The most common parenting support service in mental health agencies was referral to another agency. Individuals with mental disorders were eligible for services at the referral agencies on a case-by-case basis, and few agencies had programs for children. Parenting services were associated with the number of staff in the agency and with offering programs in urban or both urban and rural locations, which perhaps also indicates larger size of the organization. Agencies served fathers and mothers approximately equally, but child care was uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated clinical services for parents living with mental disorders are lacking. Such services should be designed to treat mental health as well as provide parenting skills intervention and practical support for parents, consistent with a recovery model.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".