49 Exploring parental acceptability of universal psychosocial screening in the pediatric emergency department
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Primary Subject area Mental Health Background Mental health concerns among children and adolescents presenting to the emergency department (ED) are on the rise. Universal screening can facilitate early identification and management of these concerns, mitigating significant long-term morbidity and mortality. The efficacy of psychosocial screening in the ED is not only determined by accurate identification of concerns, but by downstream resource-seeking behaviours to address these concerns. For many children and adolescents, parents hold a key role in determining their access to care. Thus, parental attitudes and perceptions of psychosocial screening may influence resource-seeking behaviours and predict a youth’s ability to access support. Objectives Given the limited understanding of parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in the ED, we aimed to qualitatively explore parents’ attitudes towards screening with MyHEARTSMAP, an electronic self/proxy administered psychosocial screening tool. We also quantified resource-seeking behaviours and explored barriers to seeking care. Design/Methods This was a nested qualitative study conducted during the 30-day follow-up period of a larger prospective cohort study. Eligible youth and their accompanying parent/guardian completed a self/proxy psychosocial screen using MyHEARTSMAP. Youth who screened positive were provided with recommendations and resources for support. 30 days (+ 5 days) after their ED visit, parents participated in semi-structured follow-up interviews to share their attitudes, perceptions, and thoughts around the screening and care-seeking process. Results Of the 171 participants requiring resources for support, 124 (72.5%; 95% CI 65.2-79.1%) completed the follow-up interview. Most parents endorsed positive perceptions of the screening process, describing it as an “eye-opening” process that “sparked conversation”.74.2% (95% CI 65.6-81.6%) of participants also agreed with the support recommendations they received during their ED visit. In terms of resource seeking, as displayed in Figure 1, only 41 participants (33.1%; 95% CI 24.9-42.1%) attempted to access support services. Other families felt identified concerns were mild and “not serious enough” to warrant resources, though many expressed an intention to seek care if the concerns escalated. Conclusion Parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in the ED were favourable and encouraging, with a majority of participants expressing an understanding and appreciation of the process. This lends support to the implementation of universal psychosocial screening in the ED. Despite positive attitudes towards screening, only a fraction actually attempted to access care. This incongruence may reflect the persisting view that mental health holds low priority and suggests a need for increased education on the importance of seeking timely mental health 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 | 0,009 | 0,034 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».