Intensive case management and the multi-problem client : an evaluation of the inter-ministerial project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to assess if the Inter-Ministerial Project (I.M.P.), an intensive case management project jointly sponsored by the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services Society, the Forensic Psychiatric Services, 2and Vancouver Adult Probation, is associated with a reduction in the number of institutional bed day use of a non-random selection of 25 of its clients. The institutional venues considered were all British Columbia provincial correctional institutions, the Forensic Psychiatric Institution, and the psychiatric wings of any general hospital or any provincial psychiatric hospital.By using a pre-test, post-test one group design, with comparisons being made at the one year before and during point, and the two year before and during point, the results indicate a significant reduction in institutional bed day use at both time periods. By examining the dependent variable in each of its component parts—corrections, forensic, and mental health—results indicate that although overall institutional change at the one year and two year follow-up points obtains statistical significance, it is obtained only through the great change in corrections bed day use and no change in either forensic or mental health bed day use. There is also some indication that some of the savings in bed days incurred by corrections might have been owing to bed days expended by the mental health system. Despite design limitations which resulted in an inability to infer causation, the study shows that intensive case management is associated positively with a reduction in corrections system use by multi-problem clients. There is also a suggestion that there might be a transferring of bed day use out of the corrections system and into the mental health system. Given these findings the author concludes that intensive case management might be seen as an effective community intervention, both at reducing institutional use, and for directing use towards institutions more properly suited to the needs of multi-problem clients.
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 | 0.021 | 0.070 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".