Models of Concurrent Disorder Service: Policy, Coordination, and Access to Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Societal capacity to address the service needs of persons with concurrent mental health and substance-use disorders has historically been challenging given a traditionally siloed approach to mental health and substance-use care. As different approaches to care for persons with concurrent disorders emerge, a limited understanding of current models prevails. The goal of this paper is to explore these challenges along with promising models of coordinated care across Canadian provinces. Materials and methods: A scoping review of policies, service coordination and access issues was undertaken involving a review of the formal and grey literature from 2000-2018. The scoping review was triangulated by an analysis of provincial auditor general reports. Results: Models of concurrent disorders service were found to have evolved unevenly. Challenges related to the development of system-level networks that foster service coordination and policy accountability were found to inhibit integrated care. Conclusion: Emergent models of coordinated care were found to encompass regional networks, clinical information-sharing, cross-training, improved scope of care to include psychologists and align physician incentives with patient needs to better support patient care.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".