New Brunswick’s mental health action plan: A quantitative exploration of program efficacy in children and youth using the Canadian Community Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, the New Brunswick government released the New Brunswick Mental Health Action Plan 2011-2018 (Action Plan). Following the release of the Action Plan in 2011, two progress reports were released in 2013 and 2015, highlighting the implementation status of the Action Plan. While vague in their language, these reports indicated considerable progress in implementing the Action Plan, as various initiatives were undertaken to raise awareness and provide additional resources to facilitate early prevention and intervention in children and youth. However, whether these initiatives have yielded measurable improvements in population-level mental health outcomes in children and youth remains unclear. The current study explored the impact of the Action Plan by visualizing the trend in psychosocial outcomes and service utilization of vulnerable populations in New Brunswick before and after the implementation of the Action Plan using multiple datasets from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Survey-weighted ordinary least square regression analyses were performed to investigate measurable improvements in available mental health outcomes. The result revealed a declining trend in the mental wellness of vulnerable youth despite them consistently reporting higher frequencies of mental health service use. This study highlights the need for a concerted effort in providing effective mental health services to New Brunswick youth and, more broadly, Canadian youth, as well as ensuring rigorous routine outcome monitoring and evaluation plans are consistently implemented for future mental health strategies at the time of their initiation.
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 | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".