MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210905895 · doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0163

Advocacy training for young family doctors in primary mental health care: a report and global call to action

2022· article· en· W4210905895 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBJGP Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsGeorgetown Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCall to actionMental healthTraining (meteorology)Action (physics)Primary carePrimary health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) recognises the essential role of mental health in achieving health for all; its mental health action plan calls for more effective leadership for mental health and the provision of community-based, integrated care. 1 However, integrating mental health care into primary care is a challenging, transformational change that requires more than clinical knowledge. 2 It depends on strong advocacy, leadership, and change management: skills that can be learnt. 3,4 Project The Farley Health Policy Centre (FHPC) partnered with the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) to develop and pilot a global curriculum to enable learners to lead practice transformation and be empowered with policy-influencing skills to advocate for their patients, to promote and enhance primary care mental health. We recruited 12 young family doctors, of whom seven were women and ten were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as shown in Figure 1. The programme began with a survey of learners' needs and aspirations, and an expectation that each would self-identify a practice transformation goal. Faculty and learners took part in a two-phase learning evaluation. Funding from WONCA was provided for logistics and evaluation. A small stipend was offered to each learner on successful course completion. Faculty gave their time pro bono. The programme was conducted between March and October 2020. The evaluation process was approved by the University of Liverpool Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. The learners were divided into two learning cohorts. Sessions were facilitated by two leaders and supported by four mentors. The educational content was delivered twice (to accommodate differing time zones) in six 90-minute monthly virtual sessions. The topics were: • Introduction to mental health integration

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJGP OpenSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207