Shared Care Practices in Community Addiction and Mental Health Services: A Qualitative Study on the Experiences and Perspectives of Stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared care involves collaboration between primary care, secondary and tertiary care that enables the allocation of responsibilities of care according to the treatment needs of patients over the course of a mental illness. This study aims to determine stakeholders' perspectives on the features of an ideal shared care model and barriers to practicing shared care within addiction and mental health programs in Edmonton, Canada. This is a qualitative cross-sectional study with data collected through focus group discussions. Participants included patients, general practitioners, psychiatrists, management, and therapists working in primary and secondary addiction and mental health. Responses were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Perceived barriers to the implementation of an ideal shared care model identified by participants include fragmented communication between primary and secondary healthcare providers, patient and family physician discomfort with discussing addiction and mental health, a lack of staff capacity, confidentiality issues, and practitioner buy-in. Participants also identified enablers to include implementing shared electronic medical record systems, improving communication and collaboration, physical co-location, and increasing practitioner awareness of appropriate referrals and services. This original research provides stakeholders' perspectives on the features of an ideal shared care model and barriers to practicing shared care within addiction and mental health programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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".