Using a Rapid Learning Health System for Stratified Care in Emerging Adult Mental Health Services: Protocol for the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mental illness among emerging adults is often difficult to ameliorate due to fluctuating symptoms and heterogeneity. Recently, innovative approaches have been developed to improve mental health care for emerging adults, including (1) implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess illness severity and inform stratified care to assign emerging adults to a treatment modality commensurate with their level of impairment and (2) implementing a rapid learning health system in which data are continuously collected and analyzed to generate new insights, which are then translated to clinical practice, including collaboration among clients, health care providers, and researchers to co-design and coevaluate assessment and treatment strategies. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study is to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a rapid learning health system to enable a measurement-based, stratified care treatment strategy for emerging adults. METHODS This study takes place at a specialty clinic serving emerging adults (age 16-24 years) in Calgary, Canada, and involves extensive collaboration among researchers, providers, and youth. The study design includes six phases: (1) developing a transdiagnostic platform for PROMs, (2) designing an initial stratified care model, (3) combining the implementation of PROMs with stratified care, (4) evaluating outcomes and disseminating results, (5) modification of stratified care based on data derived from PROMs, and (6) spread and scale to new sites. Qualitative and quantitative feedback will be collected from health care providers and youth throughout the implementation process. These data will be analyzed at regular intervals and used to modify the way future services are delivered. The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework is used to organize and evaluate implementation according to 3 key objectives: improving treatment selection, reducing average wait time and treatment duration, and increasing the value of services. RESULTS This project was funded through a program grant running from 2021 to 2026. Ethics approval for this study was received in February 2023. Presently, we have developed a system of PROMs and organized clinical services into strata of care. We will soon begin using PROMs to assign clients to a stratum of care and using feedback from youth and clinicians to understand how to improve experiences and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This study has key implications for researchers and clinicians looking to understand how to customize emerging adult mental health services to improve the quality of care and satisfaction with care. This study has significant implications for mental health care systems as part of a movement toward value-based health care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/51667
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 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.018 |
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".