MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809423523 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i2.552

A Comparison of Mental Health Performance Indicators in Canada

2018· article· en· W2809423523 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Smith, Amanda Butler, Alain Lesage, Paul Kurdyak, Carol E. Adair, Simone N. Vigod, Wayne Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMedicineAddictionDemographyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundThere is growing recognition of the need for consistent and reliable reporting on mental health and addiction (MHA) services in Canada. While there have been improvements in the area of reporting within provinces, comparable measures across provinces are often confined to hospitalization data. The aim of this project was to test the feasibility of creating MHA performance indicators that could be compared across Canadian provinces. MethodsA team of scientists from five provinces collaboratively developed the following six MHA performance indicators for ages 10 and up, using hospital, emergency, physician billing and mortality data (pop. 33.2 million): Access to the same family physician for people with MHA problems First contact for MHA problems was in an emergency department Physician follow-up after hospitalization for MHA problems Rate of suicide attempts among people diagnosed with MHA problems Suicide rates among people diagnosed with MHA problems Mortality of people diagnosed with MHA problems To facilitate meaningful inter-provincial comparisons, consensus definitions and standardized analytic processes were developed. Within age groups, 95% CI’s were calculated to determine if there were significant differences across years within age bands. Results are presented in a comparative format. FindingsWe found similar patterns across provinces but significant variation in the absolute rates, with no province consistently best across all indicators. In general, outcomes were poor among adolescents and young adults compared to older groups. ConclusionsThe results of this pilot indicate the process is feasible and meaningful. Future work could include generating comparisons on a regular basis to track system improvement; development of other measures of importance to stakeholders; and the expansion of the process to other provinces and territories. To our knowledge, this is the first report of provincial teams working collaboratively to generate comparable data on the performance of mental health services in Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.655
GPT teacher head0.724
Teacher spread0.069 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207