Process Evaluation of a Treatment Program for Mood and Anxiety Disorders Among Emerging Adults: Preentry Factors, Engagement, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Effective mental health services for emerging adults are needed. This work evaluated the logic model of one such program and assessed participation and medium-term outcomes. METHODS: Baseline data were collected from 398 emerging adults attending an intake appointment at a mood and anxiety disorders treatment program in Canada for persons ages 16-25. Questionnaires about demographic characteristics, prior help seeking, symptoms, functional impairment, and health satisfaction were completed at baseline and at follow-up, approximately 2 to 10 months later (mean=6 months), depending on participants' availability and willingness. Program satisfaction was also assessed. Preentry characteristics and disengagement were evaluated. Repeated-measures analyses were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: The program did not require physician referral; however, emerging adults who contacted the program had extensive prior help seeking: 73% had seen a family doctor and 32% had visited an emergency department. Among 370 individuals for whom full intake data were available, scores indicated moderate depression, moderate anxiety, and low satisfaction with quality of health. They reported either not functioning or underfunctioning for a mean of 4.3 days per week. Follow-up data indicated significant improvement on all measures, including clinically significant improvement in both depression and functioning. Patient satisfaction was high, and quality of health improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the model studied, which emphasizes early-stage intervention for mood and anxiety disorders among emerging adults, was associated with statistical and clinical improvement at intermediate follow-up. Outputs and medium-term outcomes of the model were satisfied.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".