MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756250574 · doi:10.1007/s10488-017-0824-z

Modeling the Decision of Mental Health Providers to Implement Evidence-Based Children’s Mental Health Services: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

2017· article· en· W2756250574 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles E. Cunningham, Melanie Barwick, Heather Rimas, Stephanie Mielko, Raluca Barac

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenHamilton Health Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchYork UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsMental healthHealth administrationHealth informaticsSupervisorService providerClass (philosophy)Latent class modelConjoint analysisEvidence-based practiceService (business)PsychologyProcess (computing)Public healthApplied psychologyNursingMedical educationMedicineComputer sciencePreferenceMachine learningPsychiatryBusinessArtificial intelligenceMarketingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using an online, cross sectional discrete choice experiment, we modeled the influence of 14 implementation attributes on the intention of 563 providers to adopt hypothetical evidence-based children's mental health practices (EBPs). Latent class analysis identified two segments. Segment 1 (12%) would complete 100% of initial training online, devote more time to training, make greater changes to their practices, and introduce only minor modifications to EBPs. Segment 2 (88%) preferred fewer changes, more modifications, less training, but more follow-up. Simulations suggest that enhanced supervisor support would increase the percentage of participants choosing the intensive training required to implement EBPs. The dissemination of EBPs needs to consider the views of segments of service providers with differing preferences regarding EBPs and implementation process design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services ResearchSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207