Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As our communities reflect on the impact of COVID, our most recent pandemic, attention is being increasingly paid to our experiences with the lack of connection which arose from the isolation associated with the various public health measures advocated for public protection. Dell and Butt,1 in a creative commentary, address the potential remedial benefits of animal companionship, which is receiving increased public support. Pets now appear to be present on public transportation, restaurants, care facilities, and other settings where animals were not previously welcome. Surprisingly, it is reported that the many attempts to garner empirical evidence on the positive role of pets have led to inconclusive results. This commentary adds 2 small, qualitative reports to the database. More consistent evidence arises from population surveys. As the commentary was being accepted for publication, an American Psychiatric Association (APA) Healthy Minds Monthly Poll concluded that 86% of pet owners reported a mostly positive impact on their mental health,2 with most dog and cat owners equally likely to say so. The online poll was fielded in February 2023, among a sample of 2200 adults. The positive impacts reported include reduction of stress and anxiety, unconditional love and support, companionship, a calming presence, and true friendship. The APA, along with the American Veterinary Association, is now inviting pet owners to share their words and post pictures of their own pets on social media, under the hashtag #Paws4MentalHealth. We look forward to more feedback specific to our field. Submissions of Letters to the Editor or Brief Research Reports are welcome! The next articles in this issue address several aspects of delivery of care in need of further empirical exploration. Bahji et al3 reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of specialized inpatient addiction consult services (ACS), now available in an increasing number of hospitals. These types of outcome evaluations are notoriously complex, so it is not surprising that the impact of ACS are not uniformly elucidated. Nevertheless, the article identifies outcome measures such as postdischarge engagement in addiction treatment, which could become standard indicators of a service’s impact. Beyraghi et al4 describe a 2-week, interdisciplinary, postdischarge intervention which could support the previously noted need for engagement in addiction treatment as recommended by the ACS. The high frequency and low barrier contact of the service is particularly valued. Based on a renewed governmental proposal for the involuntary treatment of adult nonoffenders with substance use disorder (SUD), Cooley et al5 conduct a Medline review of the few relevant treatment studies. The current evidence suggests limited benefits, resulting in a recommendation to better redirect resources towards expanding voluntary treatment options. This conclusion appears similar to several other articles addressing the involuntary treatment of non-offending individuals suffering from other mental disorders. The last article, by Lee et al,6 adds a welcome controlled trial of congruent couple therapy in outpatient addiction services. While couples therapy is often recommended as part of the management of recovery, the availability of such services and our randomized trials of this treatment modality are scarce. The motivations of those seeking couple therapy is reported according to the DSM-5 criteria including the experience of suicidal thoughts and/or violence towards a partner. Looking forward to any feedback from the readership.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».