Patients' and Caregivers' Beliefs About Depression Screening and Referral in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and parents'/caregivers' beliefs about the acceptability of universal depression screening in the emergency department (ED) and their perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to a mental health referral following a positive screen. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 60 patients seeking care and 59 caregivers in the ED of an urban children's hospital. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, coded, and entered into N6 (version 6.0; QSR, Thousand Oaks, Calif) for coding and content analysis. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers supported the idea of depression screening in the ED, generally viewing screening as a reflection of care and concern. Respondents reported apprehension about stigma, privacy, and provider sensitivity. Introducing the screening concept early in the visit and as part of routine care was believed to reduce stigma. Respondents generally indicated that although they would likely follow through with a referral if given, stigma and denial were viewed as significant barriers. Caregivers also reported that logistical problems such as transportation, insurance, and agency hours created barriers to help seeking, but this could be offset by social supports and information about the agency and the provider. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers generally support depression screening in the pediatric ED but identified several barriers to screening and referral for treatment. Recommendations include introduction of universal screening early in the ED visit, provision of specific information about the meaning of screening results, and support from family and health care providers to help reduce stigma and increase referral acceptability.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".