The science of child and adolescent mental health in Greece: a nationwide systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based information is essential for effective mental health care, yet the extent and accessibility of the scientific literature are critical barriers for professionals and policymakers. To map the necessities and make validated resources accessible, we undertook a systematic review of scientific evidence on child and adolescent mental health in Greece encompassing three research topics: prevalence estimates, assessment instruments, and interventions. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and IATPOTEK from inception to December 16th, 2021. We included studies assessing the prevalence of conditions, reporting data on assessment tools, and experimental interventions. For each area, manuals informed data extraction and the methodological quality were ascertained using validated tools. This review was registered in protocols.io [68583]. We included 104 studies reporting 533 prevalence estimates, 223 studies informing data on 261 assessment instruments, and 34 intervention studies. We report the prevalence of conditions according to regions within the country. A repository of locally validated instruments and their psychometrics was compiled. An overview of interventions provided data on their effectiveness. The outcomes are made available in an interactive resource online [ https://rpubs.com/camhi/sysrev_table ]. Scientific evidence on child and adolescent mental health in Greece has now been cataloged and appraised. This timely and accessible compendium of up-to-date evidence offers valuable resources for clinical practice and policymaking in Greece and may encourage similar assessments in other countries.
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 | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".