MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409046437 · doi:10.3390/jcm14072412

Sociodemographic and Clinical Profiles of Participants in Nova Scotia’s Rapid Access Stabilization Program and Community Mental Health Program: A Comparative Analysis

2025· article· en· W4409046437 on OpenAlexaffabout
Medard Kofi Adu, Raquel da Luz Dias, Samuel Obeng Nkrumah, Belinda Agyapong, Ngozi Ezeanozie, Ejemai Eboreime, Gloria Obuobi-Donkor, Sanjana Sridharan, Jason Morrison, Bryanne Taylor, Monica MacKinnon, Mahmoud A. Awara, Lori Wozney, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNova scotiaNova (rocket)Mental healthGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objective: To address the growing demand for mental health services, Nova Scotia Health introduced the Rapid Access Stabilization Program (RASP) through its Mental Health and Addictions Program (MHAP) in April 2023. RASP is designed to help reduce long wait times, frequent emergency department visits, and admissions to provide early intervention for individuals experiencing mental health problems. The RASP focuses on rapid access and early mental health intervention, aiming to prevent the worsening of patients’ symptoms, improve access to psychiatric care, and reduce service pressures on programs like the Community Mental Health Program (CMHP), which provide more extended, ongoing mental health support. This study compared participants’ sociodemographic and clinical profiles in the RASP and the CMHP. Methods: Data were collected from 1392 participants accessing mental health support either through the RASP or CMHP. A comparative analysis of sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, education, and income) and clinical characteristics (e.g., depression, anxiety, resilience, and substance use) was conducted. Chi-square tests and independent sample t-tests were used to evaluate the mean differences between the groups. Results: Significant sociodemographic and clinical differences emerged between the RASP and CMHP participants. The RASP group was older (M = 40.10 vs. 34.52 years) and more socioeconomically stable, with higher rates of employment (55.3% vs. 47.9%) and homeownership (36.5% vs. 17.7%). In contrast, the CMHP group had higher unemployment (25.7% vs. 16.5%) and lower income levels, with 47.5% earning

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.666
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→