Evaluating Training Programs for Primary Care Providers in Child/Adolescent Mental Health in Canada: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The need for child/adolescent mental health care in Canada is growing. Primary care can play a key role in filling this gap, yet most providers feel they do not have adequate training. This paper reviews the Canadian literature on capacity building programs in child and adolescent psychiatry for primary care providers, to examine how these programs are being implemented and evaluated to contribute to evidence-based initiatives. METHODS: A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed published articles of capacity building initiatives in child/adolescent mental health care for primary care practitioners that have been implemented in Canada. RESULTS: Sixteen articles were identified that met inclusion criteria. Analysis revealed that capacity building initiatives in Canada are varied but rigorous evaluation methodology is lacking. Primary care providers welcome efforts to increase mental health care capacity and were satisfied with the implementation of most programs. DISCUSSION: Objective conclusions regarding the effectiveness of these programs to increase mental health care capacity is challenging given the evaluation methodology of these studies. CONCLUSION: Rigorous evaluation methods are needed to make evidence-based decisions on ways forward to be able to build child/adolescent mental health care capacity in primary care. Outcome measures need to move beyond self-report to more objective measures, and should expand the measurement of patient outcomes to ensure that these initiative are indeed leading to improved care for families.
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 | 0.034 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".