MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765357087 · doi:10.1177/0840470417709579

The transition from youth to adult mental health services and the economic impact on youth and their families

2017· review· en· W2765357087 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil G. Barr, Christopher J. Longo, Mark Embrett, Gillian Mulvale, Tram Nguyen, Glen E. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMental healthInclusion (mineral)ProductivityHealth carePsychologyBusinessPsychiatryNursingMedicineEconomic growthEconomicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS) can be challenging for youth, their families, and healthcare providers. The purpose of this study was to identify, summarize, and assess evidence found in scholarly literature regarding the economic impact on youth and their families during the transition from CAMHS to AMHS. Relevant studies were identified through a search of 7 electronic platforms. The search identified 829 articles; 5 of which met all inclusion criteria. Evidence from the included studies suggests that, when continuity of care is lacking, transitions from CAMHS to AMHS have substantial impacts on the financial demands of youth and their families. These demands are due to increases in the cost of care, loss of employment income and productivity, and changes in insurance coverage. However, there remains limited information in this area, which highlights the need for further research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207