Interprofessional care in a community mental health outpatient program: client outcomes at discharge and follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased collaboration between health professionals has been identified as a means of improving the quality of client care while operating within the constraints of a publicly funded health care system. One such model of collaboration is the interprofessional care (IPC) model. IPC features a high degree of collaboration between a team of providers from varying health professions that coordinate services for each client, conceptualized to result in holistic and clientcentred care. These features have intuitive appeal for treating the range of affected functioning in severe and comorbid disorder. As a result, the model has been increasingly used across medical and mental health care settings, perhaps best exemplified by its identification as the strategy for Ontario health care renewal. However, this growth has occurred despite the lack of a necessary evidence base demonstrating the effectiveness of the model in actual practice. The current study assessed the statistical and clinical significance of IPC in a community outpatient mental health \nsetting, treating 183 adults with severe and comorbid disorder. Of interest was the change in clients? reported symptoms and functioning over the course of treatment and at follow-up. Clients demonstrated statistically and clinically significant change in symptoms (depression and anxiety, impulsive and addictive behaviours, and psychosis) and functioning (relation to self and others, daily living) at discharge associated with IPC, while analysis of follow-up assessment identified areas for future research. Results provide foundational evidence supporting the use of IPC in mental health care. Implications for clinicians and directions for future research are provided.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".