Pseudo-professional mechanism of collaborative mental health support in low-resource county-level contexts in China

Le résumé fourni par la source

China has made school-family-community collaboration a central policy direction for adolescent mental health, yet low-resource counties often lack the professional workforce, stable interorganizational arrangements, and non-stigmatizing pathways needed to reproduce an institutionalized service model. Existing research on task sharing shows that trained non-specialists can perform selected forms of basic psychological support, but it says less about how such tasks are incorporated into everyday school relationships and linked to professional referral. This community case study examines Suining County, Jiangsu Province, as an information-rich instrumental case. The core evidence consists of semi-structured interviews with 52 principals, school mental health teachers, homeroom teachers, subject teachers, parents, and students, together with non-participant observations conducted in 10 schools between September 2023 and June 2024. County policy documents, training records, and de-identified aggregate administrative screening data were used only to describe the case context. The analysis identifies a pseudo-professional mechanism organized through three related processes. Daily relational embeddedness enables risk signals to be noticed in classrooms, class management, and home-school communication. Bounded task sharing converts listening, basic reassurance, risk inquiry, and referral into limited front-end tasks that existing school actors can perform without assuming diagnostic or therapeutic authority. Tiered networking transfers responsibility from the class to the school and, when necessary, to medical services, while reconnecting students to everyday support after their return to school. This arrangement widens the reach of front-end support but remains constrained by teacher workload, parental refusal, discontinuities across school transitions, uneven supervision, and privacy risks. Pseudo-professionalization therefore does not mean replacing clinical professionals. It denotes a bounded reorganization of support functions whose safety depends on professional gatekeeping, sustained supervision, stable referral channels, informed participation, and disciplined information governance.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.