↓ Skip to main content

Program manager perspectives on the service system to meet the needs of youth with concurrent disorders: findings from a Canadian national survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Program manager perspectives on the service system to meet the needs of youth with concurrent disorders: findings from a Canadian national survey
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1060-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna L. Henderson, Gloria Chaim, Stephanie Luca, E. B. Brownlie, Susan Rosenkranz, Tracey A. Skilling, Joseph H. Beitchman

Abstract

Concurrent mental health and substance use issues are a serious problem for adolescents and transition-aged youth. Service providers across sectors must be involved in informing system change to meet youth needs. This study examines stakeholder perspectives on services for youth with concurrent disorders including 1) clinical issues in youth services; 2) priority system issues; and 3) optimal knowledge translation strategies to enhance researcher-stakeholder communication. A database of youth clinical services across Canada was developed. Program managers (n = 481) at cross-sectoral (mental health, addictions, justice, child welfare, advocacy, and outreach) youth-serving (aged 12-24) programs were invited to complete an online survey; 232 responded. Survey questions concerned youth needs, program characteristics, priorities for service system enhancement; and usual and preferred knowledge translation methods. Across service sectors, the mean estimated proportion of youth using services with concurrent mental health and substance use problems was 55 %. Program managers reported routine screening for mental health and substance use concerns (66 %), referring to other agencies to meet the concurrent disorder needs of youth (54 %), offering specific programming for concurrent disorders (42 %), and program evaluation (48 %). Notably, mental health programs were significantly less likely to offer concurrent disorders services than addictions programs. Where services do exist, most are targeted at youth aged 12-18 years, with fewer services available for transition-aged youth. Endorsement of various system change goals exceeded 80 %, with a particular emphasis on improving access to services (49 %), ensuring a continuum of services for varying levels of severity (37 %), and improved integration across sectors (36 %). Preferred knowledge exchange methods were workshops and websites for receiving information; and focus groups or surveys, rather than intensive participation on research teams, to inform research. There is a high need to build capacity across most sectors for meeting the needs of youth with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems, especially for transition-aged youth. In addition, limits in program evaluation should be addressed. Innovative knowledge exchange strategies are needed to better meet the needs of youth with concurrent disorders. Although service providers expressed readiness to participate in service enhancement and knowledge translation activities, effective, feasible approaches must integrate strategies likely to result in desired clinical outcomes, given clinical workload challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 32 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 34 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,427,608
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,474
of 7,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,381
of 272,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#118
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.