Manager Perspectives on Services Addressing Mental Health Needs of Youth in Physical Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth mental health is becoming a priority, but models for organizing services in physical rehabilitation centres to meet the growing needs of youth with chronic physical disabilities and mental health problems are scarce. Initial research revealed barriers faced by youth, families and rehabilitation specialists when accessing or providing mental health services for this population. This study explores managers' perspectives on challenges, strengths and opportunities for mental health service delivery and integration in physical rehabilitation at the organizational level. METHODS: Two semistructured focus groups were conducted with nine managers across five organizations offering rehabilitation services in a large Canadian city. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators expressed by managers fell into three categories: (1) available clinical resources for mental health (access to mental health specialists within internal team and internal organizational structures and mandates), (2) clinician workforce capacity (internal mental health knowledge and professional development for staff in physical rehabilitation and external mental health professionals' knowledge in physical disability) and (3) links and partnerships with key players (working in silos, external organizational structures and procedures and actions to improve pathways to access mental health services across external programs and organizations). CONCLUSIONS: Managers' insights can guide the development of policies and advocacy for change at the organizational level to support mental health service delivery within physical rehabilitation. This can be done by building capacity on mental health knowledge and skills of rehabilitation teams and establishing collaborative partnerships and well-coordinated procedures within and outside of their organizations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".