Exploring parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in paediatric emergency departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in the paediatric emergency department and identify post-screening barriers to accessing mental health care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study during the 30-day follow-up period of a larger prospective cohort study. Eligible youth and their accompanying parent/guardian first completed psychosocial self/proxy-screening using the MyHEARTSMAP tool and then received a standardized clinical mental health assessment. If the MyHEARTSMAP assessment provided youth with mental health resources recommendations, their parents were invited to a follow-up session. Thirty days (±5 days) after their ED visit, parents participated in a virtual interview to reflect and share their attitudes, perceptions and thoughts around the screening and mental health care-seeking process. Results: Of the 171 participants who received resource recommendations during their ED visit, 124 parents (72.5%; 95% CI 65.2–79.1%) completed the follow-up interview. Most parents endorsed positive perceptions of the screening process, describing it as an ‘eye-opening’ process that ‘sparked conversation’. Most participants (74.2%; 95% CI 65.6–81.6) agreed with the resource recommendations they received. In terms of resources-seeking, only 41 participants (33.1%; 95% CI 24.9–42.1) attempted to access recommended supports. Families generally felt identified concerns were mild and ‘not serious enough’ to warrant resource-seeking, though many expressed an intention to seek care if concerns escalated. Conclusion: Perceptions of psychosocial screening in the ED were favourable and encouraging among participating parents of youth screened positive for psychosocial issues. Despite positive attitudes, only a fraction of the families invited to follow-up attempted to access care. Mental health may be perceived as low priority for many families, signifying the need for improved education and awareness building on the importance of early intervention.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".