General Practitioners’ Attitudes Toward a Web-Based Mental Health Service for Adolescents: Implications for Service Design and Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders and depression are prevalent among youth. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of professional contact for treating health problems in young people. A Web-based mental health service delivered in partnership with schools may facilitate increased access to psychological care among adolescents. However, for such a model to be implemented successfully, GPs' views need to be measured. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the needs and attitudes of GPs toward a Web-based mental health service for adolescents, and to identify the factors that may affect the provision of this type of service and likelihood of integration. Findings will inform the content and overall service design. METHODS: GPs were interviewed individually about the proposed Web-based service. Qualitative analysis of transcripts was performed using thematic coding. A short follow-up questionnaire was delivered to assess background characteristics, level of acceptability, and likelihood of integration of the Web-based mental health service. RESULTS: A total of 13 GPs participated in the interview and 11 completed a follow-up online questionnaire. Findings suggest strong support for the proposed Web-based mental health service. A wide range of factors were found to influence the likelihood of GPs integrating a Web-based service into their clinical practice. Coordinated collaboration with parents, students, school counselors, and other mental health care professionals were considered important by nearly all GPs. Confidence in Web-based care, noncompliance of adolescents and GPs, accessibility, privacy, and confidentiality were identified as potential barriers to adopting the proposed Web-based service. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were open to a proposed Web-based service for the monitoring and management of anxiety and depression in adolescents, provided that a collaborative approach to care is used, the feedback regarding the client is clear, and privacy and security provisions are assured.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".