79 Acceptability and impact of psychosocial screening in the emergency department
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Psychosocial concerns in youth are prevalent and undertreated. Early identification through screening may promote appropriate management before youth present in crisis. Objectives Our primary objective was to assess the acceptability of psychosocial screening in the pediatric emergency department (ED) setting. Secondarily, we report the prevalence of psychosocial issues among youth with non-psychiatric ED presentations, and the impact of screening on mental health resource-seeking behaviour. Design/Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of youth aged 10-17 years at two pediatric EDs. Youth with a mental health-related reason for visiting the ED were excluded. Eligible and consenting youth (and their families) completed a comprehensive psychosocial self-assessment delivered on an electronic tablet, followed by standardized clinician assessment. Consent to participate in the study was used as a proxy measure for acceptability of screening. Participants with identified psychosocial resource needs were followed up at 30 days with a semi-structured telephone/email interview to assess whether they had sought recommended resources and to explore barriers to accessing care. Results Of the 1432 eligible youth given the opportunity to enrol, 795 consented. Among the 637 youth who declined enrolment, 467 specified that they declined for reasons other than not wanting to conduct a psychosocial self-assessment. This suggests that at least 55.5% (95% CI = 52.9%, 58.1%) and up to 88.1% (95% CI = 86.4%, 89.8%) find screening acceptable. Among the 760 participants who completed clinician assessment, 276 (36.3%) were identified as having a psychosocial resource need. Resources were already in place for 105 youth, leaving 171 (22.5%) with newly identified or unmet psychosocial needs. Only 41 (33.1%) of the 124 participants and/or their families who completed a 30-day follow up interview reported attempting to access the recommended resources, despite 92 (74.2%) stating they agreed with the original recommendations. The most common reason for not accessing care was the belief that the recommendations were not yet necessary or were not a priority. Of those who had attempted to access resources, 18 (43.9%) were unsuccessful at the time of interview, with the most common barrier being access delay (e.g. on a waitlist). Conclusion We found that previously unidentified/unmet psychosocial needs are prevalent among youth in the ED, and that screening is generally acceptable. However, a limited number of those who screened positive attempted to access resources, and when they did, access was often unsuccessful or delayed. More work is needed to address barriers to timely psychosocial care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».