Hard-to-treat or hard-to-catch? Clinical features and therapeutic outcomes of help-seeking foster care youths with mood disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The high level of emotional problems in youths placed in foster care contrasts with the limited use of evidence-based treatments. This study aims to better characterize the clinical features and therapeutic outcomes of foster care youths with mood disorders. Methods A secondary analysis of data collected in the context of a French-Canadian clinical research network on pediatric mood disorders in four sites was conducted to compare three groups of patients with depressive or bipolar disorder: those without exposure to child welfare intervention (WCWI, n = 181), those who received non-placement psychosocial intervention (NPI, n = 62), and those in placement interventions (PI, n = 41). Results We observed a very high rate of academic problems in patients in the groups NPI/PI compared to those in the WCWI group. Patients in the PI group had more disruptive behavioral disorders (OR = 6.87, 95% CI [3.25–14.52]), trauma-related disorders (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.6–8.94]), and any neurodevelopmental disorders (OR = 2.73, 95% CI [1.36–5.49]) compared to the other groups (NPI/WCWI). Among inpatients, the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale and the change in the Children Global Assessment Scale during the hospital stay did not differ across the three groups. We observed a higher prescription rate of antipsychotics in the PI group compared to the NPI/WCWI groups, but no significant difference for antidepressants and mood stabilizers. Discussion These findings support the view that, when provided with dedicated support, fostered inpatient youths can improve in a range comparable to other inpatients. Undetected neurodevelopmental disorders and academic problems are likely important contributors of the burden of mood disorders in these youths.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".