MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036346935

Caring for someone with depression: attitudes and clinical practices of Australian mental health clinicians

2013· dissertation· en· W7036346935 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNOVA (University of Newcastle, Australia) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMediterranean and Iberian flora and fauna
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsFacilitatorMental healthPsychological interventionDepression (economics)Clinical PracticeInclusion (mineral)Family support
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Family members and carers who support a person with depression are faced with specific challenges and are often significantly burdened as a result of the role. Those caring for someone with depression report being dissatisfied with the level of inclusivity and support provided by clinicians. However, little is known about what influences the support provided to Australian carers of people in depression. Method: To investigate this, 119 Australian mental health clinicians were surveyed with a self-report questionnaire to gather information on their attitudes towards, and current clinical practices when, working with family members and carers of a person with depression. Participants comprised mental health clinicians who identified their primary client group as mental health consumers or family members and carers. Recruitment occurred via invitation to clinicians who had attended a Partners in Depression facilitator training course and recruitment of clinicians who had not attended this training. Results: Results indicated that the attitudes of clinicians towards family members and carers were generally positive, while inclusive clinical practices varied. Providing family members and carers with an orientation to services and information on how to respond in crisis situations were two of the most frequently reported interventions. There were a number of barriers to inclusive practice identified, which were predominantly organisational in nature. In addition, those who perceived more barriers reported providing more clinical interventions to family members and carers of people with depression. In contrast, there was no relationship between reported attitudes and perceived barriers. Additionally, attitudes and barriers did not predict the inclusive clinical practice of those working directly with carers, while there was a significant relationship between perceived barriers and the inclusive clinical practice for those working directly with family members and carers. Conclusions: It appears that in order for inclusive practice to occur more consistently there is a need for major organisational and systematic reform. Further research is necessary to explore the reasons why family members and carers are not routinely included in the care and treatment process for people with depression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.153 · 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