From discharge to follow‐up: a small‐scale study of medium secure provision in the independent sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Established following the Reed Report (1991) recommendations, Redford Lodge is an independent psychiatric hospital offering medium secure provision for mentally ill patients and offenders. For this study social and behavioural data were collected on admission and discharge for the 166 patients admitted over the three years 1995‐1998 and 49 discharged patients were reassessed at six‐month follow‐up. Predictors of length of stay, discharge and success at follow‐up were examined in relation to social and demographic factors and engagement in therapy programmes.Patients' socio‐demographic variables were not significantly related to their length of stay, place of discharge or success at follow‐up. One predictor of progress after discharge was employment. Contact with family was identified as a significant factor associated with shorter stay and positive place of discharge but not associated with success at follow‐up. Engagement in psychological therapies and/or group activities was directly related to length of stay, general progress and improvement in mental state but not to subsequent involvement in community services or general success in independent living at follow‐up.Although the findings suggest treatment is successful, further research is needed to identify specific treatment variables that have a positive long‐term effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".