Mental health practices in rehabilitation for youth with physical disabilities: a chart review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Evidence on co-occurring mental health problems in youth with physical disabilities is growing, however how services are provided remains unclear. This study examined current interprofessional rehabilitation practices for physical and mental health services.Methods Youth (aged 15–24) followed for a physical disability that had mental health problems were identified. Chart reviews were used to identify practices. Mental health-related diagnoses/symptoms, assessments, goals, interventions, and referrals were extracted for inductive content analysis.Results Sixty charts were reviewed. Mental health problems included anxiety (n = 53), depression (n = 25), neurodevelopmental (n = 19) and personality disorders (n = 8), often (n = 36) citing more than one. No mental health assessments were found, and in 43%, no goals or interventions were evident. Relevant goals (n = 98) targeted emotional management, autonomy/communication of needs, acceptance of physical condition, socialization, routines/energy levels, school/work supports, and leisure/calming environments. Interventions (n = 104) included emotional management, formal individual/group therapy, links with external supports, routines/activities, reflection/acceptance, and school/work support. Mental health services were received in-house (n = 24) and/or externally (n = 30), plus 18 referrals pending and 14 not referred.Conclusion Many had more than one mental health problem, suggesting the complexity of their condition. While some mental health goals/interventions are documented, problems may often not be reported or addressed in this context.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".