Les interventions de courte durée offertes par les centres locaux de services communautaires (CLSC) aux personnes traversant un épisode de troubles anxieux ou dépressifs : une étude longitudinale au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context In Quebec, adult mental health (AMH) first-line teams are mandated to provide psychosocial services to people living with mental health difficulties, including anxiety and mood disorders. Following the establishment of new clinical guidelines in 2017, the duration of interventions was not to exceed 15 sessions, with some exceptions. Objectives The overall aim of the longitudinal component of the Shared Knowledge study was to evaluate the care experience of individuals with an anxiety or depressive disorder receiving a short-term intervention (<15 sessions) by first-line AMH teams, and the evolution of recovery over time. Specifically, the objectives were to: 1) determine the appreciation of short-term interventions by service users; and 2) assess the evolution over time of the symptomatology, functioning and quality of life and recovery of individuals receiving short-term interventions. Method A mixed method longitudinal design was used. Telephone interviews were conducted with participants, in which the following variables were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed: appreciation of services received, quality of relationship with the provider (INSPIRE), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), anxiety symptoms (GAD-7), global functioning (WHODAS), quality of life (ReQOL), and personal recovery (ERTAD). Linear mixed model analyses were performed to examine changes over time on quantitative measures. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data. Results A total of 63 individuals participated in an interview before the start of their intervention and 22 of them participated after the end of this intervention. Statistical analyses showed a significant improvement in anxiety symptoms, quality of life, and personal recovery, but no difference was observed in depressive symptoms and level of functioning. Nearly half (47.4%) of participants reported that the intervention they received had "completely" met the need that had led them to seek help, and 33.3% felt "completely" equipped or empowered in their recovery. The quality of the relationship with the caregiver, the opportunity to take part in decision-making, and the personalization of the intervention according to their needs and preferences were some of the elements that were particularly appreciated. Conclusion Short-term interventions seem to be appreciated and produce positive effects in many people suffering from anxiety or depressive disorders. However, they remain insufficient for a number of them. A personal recovery measure should be used in conjunction with symptomatology and functioning scales to monitor the progress of people using first-line mental health services.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".