MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213326710 · doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01634-w

Perceptions on barriers, facilitators, and recommendations related to mental health service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, Canada: a qualitative descriptive study

2022· article· en· W4213326710 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Spagnolo, Marie Beauséjour, Marie‐Josée Fleury, Jean-François Clément, Claire Gamache, Carine Sauvé, Lyne Couture, Richard Fleet, Shane Knight, Christine Gilbert, Helen‐Maria Vasiliadis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesCegep de Saint HyacintheCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisNursingMedicinePandemicService delivery frameworkQualitative researchModalitiesHealth carePsychologyService (business)PsychiatryBusinessCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There was an increase in self-reported mental health needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, with research showing reduced access to mental health services in comparison to pre-pandemic levels. This paper explores 1) barriers and facilitating factors associated with mental health service delivery via primary care settings during the first two pandemic waves in Quebec, Canada, and 2) recommendations to addressing these barriers. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study design was used. Semi-structured interviews with 20 participants (health managers, family physicians, mental health clinicians) were conducted and coded using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitating factors were organized according to Chaudoir et al. (2013)'s framework of structural, organizational, provider- and patient-related, as well as innovation (technological modalities for service delivery) categories. Barriers included relocation of mental health staff to non-mental health related COVID-19 tasks (structural); mental health service interruption (organizational); mental health staff on preventive/medical leave (provider); the pandemic's effect on consultations (i.e., perceptions of increased demand) (patients); and challenges with the use of technological modalities (innovation). Facilitating factors included reinforcements to mental health care teams (structural); perceptions of reductions in wait times for mental health evaluations during the second wave due to diminished FP referrals in the first wave, as well as supports (i.e., management, private sector, mental health trained staff) for mental health service delivery (organizational); staff's mental health consultation practices (provider); and advantages in increasing the use of technological modalities in practice (innovation). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore barriers and facilitating factors to mental health service delivery during the pandemic in Quebec, Canada. Some barriers identified were caused by the pandemic, such as the relocation of staff to non-mental health services and mental health service interruption. Offering services virtually seemed to facilitate mental health service delivery only for certain population groups. Recommendations related to building and strengthening human and technological capacity during the pandemic can inform mental health practices and policies to improve mental health service delivery in primary care settings and access to mental health services via access points.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207