Patients with Mental Health Issues in the Emergency Department: The Relationship Between Coercion and Perceptions of Being Helped, Psychologically Hurt, and Physically Harmed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although patients with mental health issues are increasingly turning to emergency departments to receive mental health services, emergency department staff report being ill-equipped to assist this population. The purpose of this study was threefold. First, we wanted to understand how patients with mental health emergencies who are later admitted to psychiatric units perceived their experience in the emergency department, specifically whether they felt that their experience was helpful or harmful (physically or psychologically) and whether they felt like they were treated differently than patients with medical emergencies. Second, we wanted to understand whether these experiences were impacted by patients' perceptions that they were coerced into seeking treatment. Third, we wanted to gain patients' perspectives on how emergency departments could be modified to better accommodate mental health emergencies. We conducted interviews with 49 patients in an inpatient unit at a large general hospital in British Columbia, Canada, shortly after patients were triaged from the emergency department. We found that roughly half of patients endorsed high levels of feeling helped, with the other half endorsing low levels. Additionally, perceptions of having control over coming to the emergency department were predictive of patients' perceptions of being helped and psychologically hurt.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".