A scoping review of the Choice and Partnership Approach in child and adolescent mental health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) problems are prevalent and inefficient mental health (MH) care systems can contribute to poor outcomes. The Choice and Partnership Approach (CAPA) is a MH care delivery model aiming to provide efficient, high-quality care. Although widely used, no CAPA research review exists. We conducted a scoping review to fill this gap. Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to June 2021. Grey Matters and Google were used to search the grey literature. We identified 5322 records. Removal of duplicates left 4720 documents, which were successively screened and data extracted by pairs of co-authors. The final dataset comprised six published and three non-published studies, conducted primarily at CAMH sites in England, Scotland, Australia, or Canada. Each study had multiple research objectives, which we summarized into seven categories. Positive outcomes were reported for most objectives, but attributing causality to CAPA was hampered by research methodology. Observational designs were used in all studies and approaches to analyzing data varied considerably. Research gaps included the lack of healthcare economics studies of CAPA and no assessment of facilitators and barriers. Current research on CAPA provides intriguing findings meriting further investigation. We suggest strategies to improve future studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".