CHILDREN AND PARENTSâ EXPERIENCES WITH DISTANCE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Timely access to child mental health services is a widespread concern. Many children with diagnosable disorders do not receive help. Untreated disorders can cause significant child and family impairment. Barriers to treatment can impede access. Few specialists, long wait lists and clinic-based services can be problematic. Families encounter treatment barriers related to travel (i.e., time off work or school; inconvenience; financial burden), stigma, and child resistance to therapy. Alternative models of care are needed. Distance telephone treatment (e.g., Strongest Families), can bridge the access gap.\n\nThere is little understanding about the participants’ experience with distance treatment. The research objectives were: 1. to establish if therapeutic alliance exists between a) a parent-coach and b) a child-coach, when distance treatment is delivered by telephone with no face-to-face contact; 2. to explore the parents’ distance experiences and opinions; 3. to develop and validate the Treatment Barrier Index (TBI) scale derived from participants’ experiences; and 4. to use the TBI to examine treatment barrier differences (and therapeutic processes) between two delivery systems (Distance vs Face-to-face). \n\nTherapeutic alliance exists between adult-coach and child-coach with distance treatment. Participants found distance treatment to be more private and felt less stigmatized because of visual anonymity, compared to their opinions of face-to-face services. The TBI results indicated fewer perceived barriers with distance treatment. A significant difference was found between delivery systems in terms of perceived barriers, therapeutic alliance and self-disclosure as a group of variables. This suggests that there may be differences in therapeutic processes between systems. Therapeutic alliance scores were enhanced with distance treatment and found to positively correlate with self-disclosure and outcome scores; suggesting that these processes are important in the context of distance intervention.\n\nCost-effective distance systems using non-professionals may be one way to increase access to child mental health services. Although some families may prefer the physical presence of face-to-face services, others prefer distance services. The results from these studies may help to inform system design improvements aimed at increasing service access. Improving models of care to meet participants’ needs could lead to increased service utilization, ultimately improving child health outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".