To screen or not to screen? Exploring the value of parent mental health screening in children’s rehabilitation services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parents of children with disabilities are at increased risk of mental health challenges, yet it is unclear whether parent mental health screening should be considered in the context of children's rehabilitation. METHODS: A nonsystematic narrative review was conducted guided by a framework for assessing the effectiveness of proposed health screening programs. Screening for the purpose of recommending further assessments and/or psychosocial supports and services was considered. The potential harms and benefits of mental health screening for parents of children with disability were examined considering relevant contextual factors. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: While best evidence in the form of a randomized controlled trial in this population does not yet exist, there was evidence to suggest that parent mental health is an important factor in promoting child and family health and well-being and deserves consideration in the practice of family-centered care. If appropriate referral pathways and resources are developed, children's rehabilitation service providers may be in an advantageous position to provide parent mental health screening.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONParents of children with disabilities are at increased risk for depression, stress, and anxiety.Service providers may be well placed to identify mental health concerns through screening.Contextual factors to consider before initiating screening include level of evidence for screening, whether screening would reach target clients, and whether additional supports are available.Children's rehabilitation service providers can be family-centered by attending to parent mental health needs, with the potential to improve the health, development, and well-being of the whole family.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".