MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468845016 · doi:10.7202/1036099ar

Accessibilité à la psychothérapie subventionnée par l’État : comparaisons entre les perspectives des psychologues et des psychothérapeutes

2016· article· fr· W2468845016 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stacy Bradley, Rachelle Doucet, Erich Köhler, Martin Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueSanté mentale au Québec · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Within the Quebec context, as well as the larger Canadian and International context, increasing access to mental health care treatment has become a major health care priority (see Peachey, Hicks, & Adams, 2013). Initiatives to increase access through government-funded psychotherapy have been successfully implemented in Australia and the United Kingdom. The current study sought to document how licensed psychologists and psychotherapists in Quebec differ in their attitudes about the components of these government-funded psychotherapy programs and increasing access to psychotherapy treatment.Methods The target population for the study included both psychologists and psychotherapists whom were licensed to practice psychotherapy with the Ordre of Psychologists of Quebec. Participants (N = 1 275) were recruited by email to participate in an online questionnaire focusing on components such as the services that should be offered in a new government-funded psychotherapy model (eg., individual therapy, family therapy; including employment and debt counselling), the choice and autonomy clinicians have in their treatment interventions, the role of the referring General Practitioner (GP), the fees per psychotherapy hour, the hiring structure (e.g., in the public sector versus reimbursing private psychotherapy services), among others.Results The results indicated that psychotherapists were more in favour of including family and couple therapy, and employment/vocational counselling than psychologists. Psychologists were more in favour of using evidence-based practices as well as tracking treatment outcomes using validated measures, and publishing treatment satisfaction ratings to the public. Psychotherapists were more in favour of being paid on a session-to-session basis as opposed to be being hired on a salaried basis to offer government-funded psychotherapy.Conclusions Given that psychologists and psychotherapists differ in their training background and have historically played different roles in the health care system, it is important to understand how they differ in their perspectives on accessibility to psychotherapy. The implications for implementing government-funded psychotherapy initiatives in Quebec given the different professional perspectives of the two groups are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSanté mentale au QuébecSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207