Effect of Research Questionnaires on Satisfaction with Treatment Care in Suicidal Adolescents and their Parents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few psychosocial treatment methods have been empirically validated as effective for the prevention of suicide in suicidal adolescents, in part due to concerns that research could compromise quality of care. The study assessed the impact of research batteries on satisfaction with psychiatric care in suicidal adolescents and their parents. METHOD: Suicidal adolescents presenting to the emergency department of a major urban pediatric hospital were divided into two groups, one receiving treatment as usual and the other exposed to psychometric testing of the type typically used in research protocols both before and after their treatment. Following treatment, the patients of both groups and their parents were given questionnaires to assess satisfaction with the services they had received. Differences between the two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: No significant intergroup differences were found (p>0.05) in either patients or their parents regarding treatment received from the emergency-room team, regardless of whether they had been subjected to the psychometric testing. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence in the study to support concerns that extensive psychometric testing of the type frequently encountered in research studies undermines patient satisfaction with the care they receive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".