Availability and accessibility of primary mental health services for adolescents: an overview of national recommendations and services in EU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health problems in adolescence can profoundly jeopardize adolescent current and future health and functioning. We aimed to describe existing recommendations and services regarding the delivery of primary mental health care for adolescents in 31 European countries. METHODS: Data on the availability and accessibility of primary mental health services were collected, as part of the Horizon 2020-funded project Models of Child Health Appraised. One expert from each country answered a closed items questionnaire during years 2017-18. RESULTS: All 31 participating countries had some policy or recommendations regarding the availability and accessibility of primary mental health services for adolescents, but their focus and implementation varied largely between and within countries. Only half of the participating countries had recommendations on screening adolescents for mental health issues and burdens. Merely a quarter of the countries had ambulatory facilities targeting specifically adolescents throughout the whole country. Just over half had some kind of suicide prevention programs. Same-day access to primary care in case of -health emergencies was possible in 21 countries, but often not throughout the whole country. Nineteen countries had strategies securing accessible mental health care for vulnerable adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, around half of European countries had strategies securing access to various primary mental health care for adolescents. They frequently did not guarantee care over the whole country and often tackled a limited number of situations. EU countries should widen the range of policies and recommendations governing the delivery of mental health care to adolescents and monitor their implementation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".