[Reflections and recommendations from Quebec mental health university institutes on the working paper of the provincial forum for the 2014-2020 Mental Health Action Plan].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOAL: Quebec's three mental health university institutes (DMHUI, IUSMM and the IUSMQ) and the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke submitted a statement to the provincial consultation forum on the 2014-2020 Mental Health Action Plan (MHAP), which was held in January 2014 and organized by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS). This article presents these institutes' main recommendations. METHOD: Mental health university institutes deliver a wide and diverse range of services. They know about the challenges of organizing mental health services and are aware of national and international trends in the delivery of the best organizational and clinical practices in mental health. It is therefore as key stakeholders in the mental health care network that they commented on each component in the working paper. RESULTS: The proposed orientations are consistent with the 2005-2010 MHAP. The presented themes clearly reflect current issues, although the guidelines must be more explicit regarding the vision of how services will be organized in coming years. These institutes therefore suggest that the following principles be included: the full exercise of citizenship rights, the organization of services within integrated networks, performance, continuous improvement and innovation, as well as a global and integrated vision of health. The complexity of today's problems requires flexibility, complementarity and continuity of services, particularly for youth, aboriginals, and people with concomitant disorders. These institutions therefore stress the importance of prevention, early intervention programs, and increased support for first-line general practitioners and health care professionals. They also emphasized that specialized inpatient and outpatient services should not be neglected. Community services must also be structured around various levels of support, such as ICM and ACT, as well as around specialized programs available in hospital outpatient clinics. The development and transfer of knowledge remain a central issue when it comes to improving the mental health of the general population. The consolidation of ultra-specialized services, teaching and research should be included in the next MHAP. Finally, a global health perspective must go beyond the MSSS framework to become a governmental and interministerial commitment based on a vision of public mental health that incorporates the health status of the general population and accounts for social determinants. CONCLUSION: It is important to have a national plan that promotes a vision. This plan must be part of an interministerial action plan that truly supports the full exercise of citizenship rights and the fight against stigmatization in collaboration with people who use these services and their families.
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 | 0.036 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".