“There are still broken or fragmented systems”: Qualitative assessment of needs to strengthen adolescent mental health services in American Samoa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental health challenges appear common among adolescents in American Samoa. There is a community-identified need to better understand the health burden and identify opportunities to strengthen the mental health system to better meet adolescent mental health needs. The goal of this qualitative study was to gather community stakeholders' perceptions of common mental health problems among adolescents in American Samoa, identify existing services for adolescent mental health, and highlight strength-based opportunities to enhance care. Using the Fa'afaletui research framework, semi-structured in-depth interviews (n = 28) were conducted between October 2020 and February 2021 using Zoom. Key informants were adults living in American Samoa, sampled for diversity in profession, age, gender, education, and region of residence. Transcripts were coded in duplicate and analysed using deductive thematic analysis. Participants reported that suicide, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder are the conditions of highest burden. Participants identified an impressive amount of infrastructure and community mobilization, but also limitations in these services in addressing adolescents' health needs. Four themes arose related to the need to: (1) strengthen existing infrastructure; (2) reduce barriers to treatment access; (3) improve sustainability; and (4) encourage collaboration among leaders. Policymakers should prioritize the allocation of resources to strengthen infrastructure, public education, and stakeholder collaboration to improve adolescent mental health in American Samoa.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".