Variables Associated With Perceived Work Role Performance Among Professionals in Multidisciplinary Mental Health Teams Overall and in Primary Care and Specialized Service Teams, Respectively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study had a dual purpose (1) to identify variables associated with perceived work role performance (WRP) among 315 mental health professionals (MHPs) in Quebec and (2) to compare variables related to WRP in MH primary care teams (PCTs) and specialized service teams (SSTs), respectively. WRP was measured using an adapted version of the work role questionnaire. Variables were organized within five areas: individual characteristics, perceived team attributes, perceived team processes, perceived team emergent states, and geographical and organizational context. Half of the WRP variables were linked to team processes. Knowledge sharing correlated with WRP in both MH PCTs and SSTs. Team attributes had more impact on MH PCTs, while team processes and team emergent states played a larger role among SSTs. The association between WRP and knowledge sharing confirms the need for a systematic training program to promote interdisciplinary collaboration. Integration strategies (e.g., service agreements) could improve collaboration between MH PCTs and SSTs and help MHPs perform more effectively within PCTs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".