Talking ‘Bout Better outcomes for Adolescent Depression: Youth and Caregiver Perspectives on an Integrated Care Pathway for Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is a common condition among adolescents, with rates continuing to rise. A gap exists between evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of depression and clinical practice. Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) can help address this gap, but to date no study has examined how young people and their caregivers experience ICPs and whether these pathways are an acceptable form of care. This study used focus groups with adolescents, caregivers, and service providers to examine experiences of an ICP. METHODS: Six individual interviews with service providers, four focus groups with youth, and two focus groups with caregivers were completed. Data was analyzed consistent with Braun & Clarke's Thematic Analysis Framework within an interpretivist paradigm. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that ICPs are acceptable to youth and their caregivers and that ICPs facilitate shared decision making between youth/caregivers and care providers. Findings also indicated that youth are willing to engage with ICPs particularly when there is a trusted clinician involved who helps interpret and tailor the ICP to the young person's experience. Further questions include how to best integrate these into the overall system and how to further tailor these pathways to support youth with diagnostic complexity and treatment resistance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".