MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6977513979 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5279580

Experiences of psychiatrists and support staff providing telemental health services to Indigenous peoples of Northern Quebec

2021· other· en· W6977513979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousMental healthInsiderDocumentationHealth careWork (physics)TelemedicineQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Due to regional, professional, and resource limitations, access to mental health care for Canada’s Indigenous peoples can be difficult. Telemental health (TMH) offers the opportunity to provide care across vast distances and has been proven to be as effective as face-to-face services. To our knowledge, there has been no qualitative study exploring the experiences of TMH staff serving the Indigenous peoples in Northern Quebec, Canada; which is the purpose of this study. Methods Using a qualitative descriptive design, the entire staff of a TMH clinic was recruited, comprising of four psychiatrists and four support staff. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted through videoconferencing, and results were thematically analyzed. Results To address the mental health gap in Northern communities, all psychiatrists believe in the necessity of in-person care and note the synergistic effect of combining in-person care and TMH services. This approach to care allows psychiatrists to maintain both an insider and outsider identity. However, if a patient’s condition requires hospitalization, then the TMH staff face a new set of information sharing and communication challenges with the inpatient staff. TMH staff believe that the provision of culturally sensitive care to Northern patients at the inpatient unit is progressing; however, more work needs to be done. Despite the strong collegial atmosphere within the clinic and collective efforts to provide quality TMH services, all participants express a sense of frustration with the paper-based and scattered documentation system. Conclusion The TMH team works in cohesion to offer TMH services to Indigenous peoples; yet, automatization is needed to improve the workflow efficiency within the clinic and collaboration with the Northern clinics. More research is needed on the functioning of TMH teams and the separate but important roles of each team member.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→French-language works237,207→