Thematic analysis of youth mental health providers' perceptions of neuropsychological assessment services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: A growing number of quantitative studies have investigated the utility of neuropsychological assessment in mental health settings. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has qualitatively explored youth mental health providers' perceptions of neuropsychological assessment services. A more in-depth understanding of the perceived advantages and barriers associated with neuropsychological assessment in youth mental health settings is critical to better inform policy, practice and service uptake. Thus, the aim of this study was to qualitatively explore clinicians' views about neuropsychological assessments for youth with mental health concerns. METHODS: A single open-ended qualitative question, included as part of an anonymous cross-sectional online survey, was completed by clinicians (N = 206) treating or assessing adolescents and young adults within Australian primary care mental health centres (headspace). Responses were analysed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified. Clinicians (a) identified barriers to accessing neuropsychological assessments (53%), (b) indicated a range of mixed outcomes following neuropsychological assessment (39%), (c) highlighted a need for neuropsychological assessments (22%), (d) reported a lack of awareness about this resource (10%) and (e) described practice issues associated with neuropsychological services (4%). CONCLUSION: This study uncovered perceived factors contributing to reduced access to neuropsychological assessment in Australian youth mental health settings. Given potential adverse outcomes resulting from this clinical service gap, efforts should be made to address factors contributing to poorer access, thereby mitigating the impact of poor access on the management of mental illness in youth. Several strategies, including funding neuropsychological assessments, are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".