The relationship between kinship and foster placement on mental health indicators in children and youth seeking treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Children living in both kinship and foster care placements often face considerable adversity. It is possible that these placements can have differential impacts on children’s socioemotional, psychological, and educational outcomes and well-being. Objective This study examined the similarities and differences between children and youth who reside in kinship placements and those who reside in foster placements. Specifically, similarities and differences in children's mental health care and service requirements, as well as their family's strengths and resources were explored to better understand the needs of children placed in out-of-home care. Participants The final sample included assessments from 5356 treatment-seeking children, ages three to 18 years old, from across 66 select mental health agencies in Ontario . Methods Children were assessed using the interRAI ChYMH, the ChYMH-S, or the ChYMH-DD. These assessments include a variety of embedded evidence-informed scales and algorithms to examine the mental health needs, preferences and strengths of these vulnerable children. Results Compared to children in kinship placements, children in foster care were more likely to: (a) exhibit greater externalizing symptoms, (b) display concerns regarding sexual behaviour, (c) encounter trauma, and (d) experience more polyvictimization. No differences were found in terms of spirituality and cultural connectedness. Additionally, kinship caregivers tended to experience greater distress, compared to foster caregivers. Conclusions Findings from this study highlight important areas where children residing in out-of-home care, particularly those in foster care, require increased access to mental health resources and support. Furthermore, trauma-informed care should always be at the forefront when working with foster and kinship care children and their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".