Robust Parental Preferences in Mental Health Screening in Youth From a Multinational Online Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Importance Screening youth for mental disorders may assist in prevention, promote early identification, and reduce related lifetime impairment and distress. Objective The goal was to survey parents about their comfort and preferences for pediatric mental health screening, as well as factors associated with these preferences. Design The online survey was available July 11-14, 2021 on Prolific Academic. Analyses were conducted from November 2021 to November 2022. Setting Online survey. Participants The survey was administered to English-speaking parents with at least one 5-21-year old child at home. The sample included 972 parents, aged 21 and older, from the United States ( n =265), United Kingdom ( n =282), Canada ( n =171), and Other Countries ( n =254). Exposure(s) None. Main Outcome(s)/Measure(s) Parental preferences regarding the screening content, implementation preferences, and screener reviewing preferences of pediatric mental health screening were assessed in a novel survey. Mixed effects logistic models were employed to evaluate factors that influence parental comfort levels. Results Parents, aged 21 to 65 ( M =39.4; 62.3% female), supported annual mental health screening for their child and preferred reviewing the screening results with professional staff (e.g., physicians). Parents preferred parent-report over child self-reports, though they were generally comfortable with both options. Despite slight variations based on country of residence, screening topic, and child’s age, parents were generally comfortable discussing all 21 topics. The greatest comfort was with sleep problems; the least comfort was with firearms, gender identity, suicidality, and substance use/abuse. Conclusions/Relevance Our data indicated that parents support annual parent- and child self-report mental health screening in primary care settings, but comfort levels differ according to various factors, such as screening topic. Parents preferred screening to occur in the healthcare office and to discuss screening results with professional staff. In addition to parental need for expert guidance, the growing awareness of child mental health needs highlights the importance of addressing mental health concerns early via regular mental health screenings. KEY POINTS Question What are parents’ attitudes towards pediatric mental health screening in primary care settings? Findings The vast majority of parents surveyed online ( N=972) expressed comfort with the screening of children for mental health concerns in the primary care setting. Variations in comfort were noted in relation to age of child and topics included. Parents expressed a preference for parent report over child report, as well as for reviewing screening results with professional medical staff. These findings were robust to the country of residence (e.g., United States, Canada, United Kingdom). Meaning Our findings document parental preferences that should be incorporated to enhance the feasibility of mental health screening in primary care settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".