A Multiprofessional and Intersectoral Working Model to Detect and Support Preschool Children With Neurodevelopmental Difficulties (PLUSS Model): Protocol for an Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurodevelopmental difficulties with various emotional and behavioral symptoms increase the risk of mental health problems later in life. Although we know that early detection and interventions are effective, there is a lack of intersectoral, integrative, and evidence-based working models to provide these services for preschool children and their parents. PLUSS (Psykisk hälsa Lärande Utveckling Samverkan kring Små barn; English translation: mental health, learning, development, collaboration around preschool children) is a collaborative "one way in" model involving parents, health care providers, preschools, social services, and researchers. PLUSS provides coordinated services to screen, evaluate, and support toddlers with neurodevelopmental problems. It also offers parental interventions and education for preschool teachers. OBJECTIVE: The model will be studied in a research project that aims to investigate (1) using a quasi-experimental study on longitudinal trajectories of neurodevelopmental difficulties and ability to function among participating preschoolers, (2) user satisfaction, and (3) implementation of the model and its effectiveness. The long-term goal is to provide evidence-based, coordinated services to reduce problems related to neurodevelopmental difficulties among preschool children and promote well-being and functioning in everyday life. METHODS: The population of interest is children aged 1.5-5 years, whom the child health care nurse refers for further assessment due to suspected neurodevelopmental problems. Data are collected using questionnaires and semistructured interviews. Measures include sociodemographic data, longitudinal data on neurodevelopmental problems, parental well-being and satisfaction, the effectiveness of parental and preschool teacher training and implementation of the model, and fostered multisectoral collaborations. Data will be analyzed with qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The PLUSS model has been approved by the National Ethics Review Board (2019-04839). This study was supported by FUTURUM grants 910161 and 910441. Data collection started in April 2019, with the data collection period planned to end in May 2024. CONCLUSIONS: PLUSS is an integrative working model with multiprofessional competence and intersectoral collaboration capacity to help preschool children with neurodevelopmental problems and their parents. It will be studied using quasi-experimental cross-sectional and longitudinal study designs. Data will be collected from parents, health care providers, and preschool teachers, and will be analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. The study will run in one Swedish county, and generalizability needs to be studied separately. Loss of follow-up could impact the longitudinal analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04815889; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04815889. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34969.
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 | 0.070 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.010 |
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".