MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406861879 · doi:10.57598/r170a

Organisatie van geestelijke gezondheidszorg voor kinderen en jongeren

2011· book· en· W4406861879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gijs Mommerency, Koen Van den Heede, Nick Verhaeghe, Nathalie Swartenbroekx, Lieven Annemans, Eric Schoentjes, Marijke Eyssen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 12 -- 1.1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THIS REPORT 12 -- 1.1.1. The Western world: de-institutionalization, the balanced care model 12 -- 1.1.2. The reforms in Belgium 12 -- 1.1.3. Context of the current report 13 -- 1.2. SCOPE OF STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 14 -- 1.2.1. Scope 14 -- 1.2.2. Research questions 15 -- 1.3. DEFINITIONS 16 -- 1.3.1. Definition: mental health 16 -- 1.3.2. Definition: mental disorders, mental health problems 16 -- 1.3.3. Definition: camhs and specialist camhs 17 -- 1.3.4. Definition: children and adolescents 17 -- 1.3.5. Definition: ”Integrated care” 17 -- 2. METHODS 18 -- 2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW 18 -- 2.1.1. Search strategy 18 -- 2.1.2. In- and exclusion criteria 19 -- 2.1.3. Selecting studies 19 -- 2.1.4. Quality appraisal and data extraction 19 -- 2.2. INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW 20 -- 2.2.1. Selection of countries 20 -- 2.2.2. Methodology of data collection 21 -- 2.2.3. General framework 21 -- 3. LITERATURE RESULTS: A NARRATIVE REVIEW ON ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF CAMHS 22 -- 3.1. INTRODUCTION 22 -- 3.2. SEARCH RESULTS & QUALITY APPRAISAL 22 -- 3.3. THE WHO MODEL 23 -- 3.3.1. WHO guidance on Policy development 23 -- 3.3.2. WHO Model components 23 -- 3.4. COUNTRY LEVEL POLICIES 24 -- 3.4.1. Policy aspects on countries (or regions) resulting from the peer-reviewed literature: Canada, Norway, the US 25 -- 3.5. SYSTEMS OF CARE 26 -- 3.5.1. Historical context, definition and principles 26 -- 3.5.2. Systems of care: observational studies 28 -- 3.5.3. Systems of care: Fort Bragg and Stark County studies 29 -- 3.6. PATIENT AND SERVICE LEVEL MODELS 30 -- 3.6.1. Intensive community-based interventions 30 -- 3.6.2. Specialized outpatient care as alternative to inpatient mental health 35 -- 3.6.3. School-based services 35 -- 3.7. OTHER INITIATIVES REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF CAMHS 36 -- 3.8. RESTRICTIONS OF THIS REVIEW 37 -- 4. LITERATURE RESULTS: A NARRATIVE REVIEW ON FUNDING AND FINANCING MECHANISMS OF CAMHS 45 -- 4.1. INTRODUCTION 45 -- 4.2. SEARCH RESULTS 45 -- 4.3. CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH CARE: PEER REVIEWED STUDIES 45 -- 4.3.1. Peer reviewed studies camhs: Introduction 45 -- 4.3.2. Peer reviewed studies camhs: focus and funding environment 46 -- 4.3.3. Peer reviewed studies camhs: evidence 46 -- 4.4. FINANCING ISSUES OF (INTEGRATED) MENTAL HEALTH CARE: REVIEWS 47 -- 5. BELGIUM 48 -- 5.1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN BELGIUM . 48 -- 5.2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 49 -- 5.3. COUNTRY PROFILE AND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 49 -- 5.3.1. Country profile 49 -- 5.3.2. Health care system 50 -- 5.4. TARGET POPULATION 50 -- 5.4.1. Age limits 50 -- 5.4.2. Epidemiologic data 50 -- 5.5. HEALTH CARE: CAMH SERVICE ORGANIZATION & STAKEHOLDERS 51 -- 5.5.1. Camhs organization: services level 52 -- 5.5.2. Stakeholders: health services level 57 -- 5.6. HEALTH CARE: CAMH POLICIES AND POLICY STAKEHOLDERS 57 -- 5.6.1. Health care: Policy stakeholders 57 -- 5.6.2. Health care: camh policies 58 -- 5.7. NEIGHBOURING SECTORS 60 -- 5.7.1. Social care and youth welfare 60 -- 5.7.2. Juvenile justice 64 -- 5.7.3. Disability care 65 -- 5.7.4. Education 66 -- 5.8. FINANCING AND FUNDING 68 -- 5.8.1. Introduction 68 -- 5.8.2. Funding mechanisms on the federal government 68 -- 5.8.3. Funding mechanisms of the federated entities 71 -- 5.9. INTRA- AND INTER-SECTOR COLLABORATION 73 -- 5.10. NEEDS ASSESSMENT, WORKFORCE TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 74 -- 6. INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW 76 -- 6.1. INTRODUCTION 76 -- 6.1.1. General methodological considerations 76 -- 6.1.2. Structure of the next sections 76 -- 6.2. HE NETHERLANDS 77 -- 6.2.1. Country profile 77 -- 6.2.2. Dutch health care system 77 -- 6.2.3. Child and adolescent mental health policy: policy plans and inter-sector collaboration at the policy level 77 -- 6.2.4. Camhs organization in the health care sector 78 -- 6.2.5. Neighbouring sectors 79 -- 6.2.6. Financing and funding of camhs 81 -- 6.2.7. Intra- and inter-sector collaboration 81 -- 6.2.8. Needs assessment, workforce training, knowledge development 82 -- 6.2.9. Main criticisms 82 -- 6.3. CANADA (BRITISH COLUMBIA) 84 -- 6.3.1. Country profile 84 -- 6.3.2. Health care system 85 -- 6.3.3. Child and adolescent mental health policy: inter-sector collaboration at the policy level and policy plans 85 -- 6.3.4. Camhs organization in the health care sector 86 -- 6.3.5. Neighbouring sectors 88 -- 6.3.6. Financing and funding of camhs 90 -- 6.3.7. Intra- and inter-sector collaboration 90 -- 6.3.8. Needs assessment, workforce training, knowledge development 90 -- 6.3.9. Main criticisms 91 -- 6.4. ENGLAND (UK) 92 -- 6.4.1. Country profile 92 -- 6.4.2. Preliminary remark 92 -- 6.4.3. Health care system 92 -- 6.4.4. Child and adolescent mental health policy: policy plans and inter-sector collaboration at the policy level 92 -- 6.4.5. Camhs organization in the health care sector 93 -- 6.4.6. Neighbouring sectors 94 -- 6.4.7. Financing and funding of camhs 96 -- 6.4.8. Intra- and inter-sector collaboration 97 -- 6.4.9. Needs assessment, workforce training, knowledge development 97 -- 6.4.10. Main criticisms 98 -- 6.5. AN EXAMPLE IN FRANCE: L’ EPSM LILLE-METROPOLE IN NORD PAS DE CALAIS 100 -- 6.5.1. Organization of health and mental health care in France 101 -- 6.5.2. CAMHS offered by the EPSM Lille-Métropole 102 -- 6.6. GENERAL OVERVIEW: THE NETHERLANDS, CANADA(BC), ENGLAND, BELGIUM 104 -- 7. DISCUSSION 110 -- 7.1. NO REFORM WITHOUT GLOBAL FRAMEWORK 110 -- 7.2. ASPECTS OF CAMHS ORGANISATION 111 -- 7.3. CAMHS AND EDUCATION ARE FACING COMMON CHALLENGES AND COULD LOOK FOR INTEGRATED ANSWERS 112 -- 7.4. RETHINKING FUNDING STRATEGIES TO ALLOW FOR CHANGE 112 -- 7.5. WITHOUT MONITORING AND FEED-BACK ANY REFORM WILL SOON LOSE TRACK 112 -- 7.6. A GLOBAL CAMHS FRAMEWORK WILL NOT STAND WITHOUT A QUALITATIVE CAMHS WORKFORCE. 113 -- 7.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY 113 -- 8. REFERENCES 114

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1290.037

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207