MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3064152122 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaa068.112

113 Patient navigation for improving outcomes in child and youth development and mental health: A prospective cohort study comparing patients who did and did not receive navigator services after program referral

2020· article· en· W3064152122 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alanna Santarossa, Valerie Steckle, Wid Yaseen, Dorjana Vojvoda, Michael Sgro, Tony Barozzino, Shazeen Suleman

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMental healthMedicineCohortFamily medicineProspective cohort studyScheduleTest (biology)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mental health and developmental conditions are common among Canadian children and youth and require multiple supports in both clinical and community settings. However, many families may find it difficult to access all of the appropriate services available to them. Thus, pediatric patient navigator programs have been developed to help families connect to resources that will support their child’s diagnosis. However, little is known about what barriers may prevent families from actually connecting with the patient navigator following an appropriate referral. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate a Canadian Pediatric Patient Navigation Program (PPNP) for children with a formal or provisional mental health or developmental diagnosis. The primary objective was to determine which physician-identified barriers may prevent families from connecting with the pediatric patient navigator (PPN) once an appropriate referral has been made. Of those who did not connect, we were interested in families who booked but did not attend their appointment (i.e., no-show) and families who were unable to be contacted by administrative staff to schedule an appointment despite contact attempts (i.e., no-contact). Design/Methods This prospective cohort study included patients referred to a Canadian PPNP between October 1st 2017 and October 31st 2018. Data was collected via standardized PPNP referral forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using chi-square tests of independence. Results Of those who met the inclusion criteria (n=524), 78% connected with the PPN and 22% did not connect with the PPN. Of those who did not connect, 41% were classified as no-show and 40% were classified as no-contact. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of sex, diagnosis and time since diagnosis. Those who connected with the PPN were significantly more likely to have a settlement barrier identified compared to those who did not connect (29% vs. 18%, p<.05). Those who no-showed were significantly more likely to have parental mental health identified as a barrier compared to those who connected (15% vs. 5%, p<.05). Finally, families were significantly more likely to have a language/literacy barrier identified if there was no-contact compared to if they no-showed (35% vs. 15%, p<.05). Conclusion Parental mental health issues may prevent families from showing up to booked appointments, highlighting the importance of ensuring concurrent parental mental health support. Additionally, language/literacy barriers are a key factor contributing to the inability of administrative staff to contact families, highlighting the need for interpreter services to aid in booking appointments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207