Topical issues of improving the quality of online services in the field of child mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Thery has been conducted study on the risks and benefits of remote psychiatric and psychological services provided through video-internet communication. Purpose. To explore and manage the quality of telehealth services in mental health, including such aspects as legal, ethical, clinical, social risks relevant for online counseling. Methods. The attitude towards online counseling format among clients and mental health care providers (psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical counselors) was explored with an online survey. The study included two stages with two hundred thirty two and 279 respondents. Results. The summary of benefits included cost-efficiency of the online services, flexibility in scheduling, availability of the services for people from remote communities and with mobility issues, epidemiological benefits (accesses to services during COVID-19 pandemic). Limitations and potential risks included decrease in the quality of communication and interaction, which can result in misdiagnosis or incorrect interpretation of various tests and questionnaires, miscommunication, change in the level of motivation, age-related limitations. Additionally, there are risk factors related to technological side - e.g. potential risks for confidentiality and personal information disclosure. Limitations. The limitations of the study are related to the method of obtaining information through an anonymous electronic survey and the relatively small number of respondents. Conclusions. The COVID-19 epidemic has significantly accelerated the development of telemedicine. The benefits and opportunities of online sessions outweigh the risks and limitations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".