MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405000697 · doi:10.1111/cch.70019

Services Addressing Mental Health Needs of Youth in Physical Rehabilitation: Perspectives of Clinicians, Youth and Family Members

2024· article· en· W4405000697 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stéphanie Tremblay, Shalini Lal, Mark A. Ferro, Dana Anaby

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMental healthStaffingWorkforceThematic analysisNursingRehabilitationStakeholderPsychologyQualitative researchMedicineMedical educationPublic relationsPsychiatryPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about services addressing mental health provided in a rehabilitation setting to youth with physical disabilities is limited. This study aimed to better understand the needs, supports, challenges and potential solutions to optimize rehabilitation services for co-occurring physical and mental health needs, from the perspectives of youth, family members and clinicians. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach using 22 individual interviews with youth, parents and clinicians from five rehabilitation centres in a large Canadian city was employed. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Three themes were identified across the three stakeholder groups: (1) available clinical resources for mental health (access to mental health professionals, impact of organizational structures and mandates and continuity of services during transition to adult care); (2) clinician workforce capacity (mental health knowledge, skills and professional development, and therapeutic rapport between clinician and youth); and (3) links and partnerships with key players (improved pathways to access mental health services across programmes and organizations, and family involvement and advocacy). CONCLUSION: This study provides insights to barriers for mental health care (such as limited mental health knowledge, tools and professional development and access to specialists within the team, restrictive organizational mandates and disruption of services during the transition to adult care), illustrating important aspects to address. Clinicians can be better equipped to address mental health in rehabilitation settings via training opportunities and peer and organizational support in addition to establishing links with external partners. Organizations can also ensure adequate staffing and create pathways within and beyond their institutions to deliver well-coordinated mental health services in a more accessible way.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207