Sociodemographic factors associated with routine outcome monitoring: a historical cohort study of 28,382 young people accessing child and adolescent mental health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to inform patients, clinicians and policy-makers about clinical need and the effectiveness of any given treatment. Consistent PROM use can promote early symptom detection, help identify unexpected treatment responses and improve therapeutic engagement. Very few studies have examined associations between patient characteristics and PROM data collection. METHODS: We used the electronic mental health records for 28,382 children and young people (aged 4-17 years) accessing Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across four South London boroughs between the 1st of January 2008 to the 1st of October 2017. We examined the completion rates of the caregiver Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a ubiquitous PROM for CAMHS at baseline and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: SDQs were present for approximately 40% (n = 11,212) of the sample at baseline, and from these, only 8% (n = 928) had a follow-up SDQ. Patterns of unequal PROM collection by sociodemographic factors were identified: males were more likely (aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.13), whilst older age (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.87-0.88), Black (aOR 0.79 95% CI 0.74-0.84) and Asian ethnicity (aOR 0.75 95% CI 0.66-0.86) relative to White ethnicity, and residence within the most deprived neighbourhood (aOR 0.87 95% CI 0.80-0.94) were less likely to have a record of baseline SDQ. Similar results were found in the sub-group (n = 11,212) with follow-up SDQ collection. Our findings indicate systematic differences in the currently available PROMS data and highlights which groups require increased focus if we are to gain equitable PROM collection. We need to ensure representative PROM collection for all individuals accessing treatment, regardless of ethnic or socioeconomic background; biased data have adverse ramifications for policy and service level decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".