Evaluation of an automated matching system of children and families to virtual mental health resources during COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and their families often face obstacles in accessing mental health (MH) services. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test an electronic matching process to match children with virtual MH resources and increase access to treatment for children and their families during COVID-19. METHODS: Within a large observational child cohort, a random sample of 292 families with children ages 6-12 years were invited to participate. Latent profile analysis indicated five MH profiles using parent-reported symptom scores from validated depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and inattention measures: (1) Average Symptoms, (2) Low Symptoms, (3) High Symptoms, (4) Internalizing, and (5) Externalizing. Children were matched with virtual MH resources according to their profile; parents received surveys at Time 1 (matching process explanation), Time 2 (match delivery) and Time 3 (resource uptake). Data on demographics, parent MH history, and process interest were collected. RESULTS: 128/292 families (44%) completed surveys at Time 1, 80/128 families (63%) at Time 2, and a final 67/80 families (84%) at Time 3, yielding an overall uptake of 67/292 (23%). Families of European-descent and those with children assigned to the Low Symptoms profile were most likely to express interest in the process. No other factors were associated with continued interest or uptake of the electronic matching process. Most participating parents were satisfied with the process. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic matching process delivered virtual MH resources to families in a time-efficient manner. Further research examining the effectiveness of electronically matched resources in improving children's MH symptoms is needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".