Successful recruitment strategies for prevention programs targeting children of parents with mental health challenges: An international study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research substantiates children of parents with mental disorders\nincluding substance abuse face increased risk for emotional and\nbehavioral problems. Although evidence suggests that support\nprograms for children enhance resiliency, recruiting children to\nthese groups remains problematic. This study identifies successful recruitment strategies for prevention programs for children of\nparental mental illness. The participants were recruited from an\ninternational network of researchers. E-mail invitations requested\nthat researchers forward a web-based questionnaire to five colleagues with recruitment experience. Forty-five individuals from\nnine countries practicing in mental health responded. Descriptive\nstatistics and qualitative content analysis techniques were used.\nResults: Schools, adult, and youth mental health services were\nrecruitment sources. Nine themes were identified: Relationships,\ndiversified information output, logistics, program consistency,\nfamily involvement, recruitment through adults, stigma, recruiting locations, social media. Recruitment barriers were: stigma,\ninadequate knowledge about parental mental illness and limited\ntime. Transportation to programming was an essential component of successful recruitment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".