An Investigation on the Value of Integrating Mental Health Supports in Education to Build Capacity for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current statistics in Ontario show that one in five students suffer from mental health issues (Canada, 2012). Mental health disorders cause significant distress, impairing students’ functioning at school, at home, and in the community (Children’s Mental Health Ontario, 2014). Research has shown that prevention and early intervention strategies targeting students at risk for mental health challenges are beneficial, cost-effective, and reduce the need for more costly, intensive interventions. (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). In response to recent Ontario Ministry mental health initiatives (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006; 2011; 2013), the Peel District School Board, in Ontario, Canada, launched an interprofessional, mental health and behaviour program called Intensive Support (IS). The primary goal of this support service is to build capacity for preventative and early intervention knowledge and programming about mental health within school staff. Since schools play an important role in the prevention and early intervention of students’ mental health needs (Durlak & Wells, 2011), this case study investigated whether the IS program contributed to building organizational capacity for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental health problems. The intent of this study was to allow school staff the opportunity to dialogue, through semi-structured interviews, about what specific strategies and collaborative learning supports school staff value most in the IS program. This study examined staffs’ perception of and experiences with engaging with the IS program. More specifically, the study explored what specific supports for learning staff identified and valued as contributing most to increasing their capacity for change and how IS program supports could be enhanced. Findings of this study reveal that specific learning conditions need to exist to build capacity in schools. In addition, specific recommendations to enhance the IS program were suggested as determined by the study’s participants.\nKeywords: mental health, education, building capacity, interprofessional team, collaboration
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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".