PW01-206 - People'S Perception Of Their Involuntary Admission At One Year Follow-Up And Readmission Rates To Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is limited knowledge of how individuals reflect on their involuntary admission. Objectives To investigate, at one year after an involuntary admission, (i) peoples perception of the necessity of their involuntary admission (ii) the enduring impact on the relationship with their family, consultant psychiatrist and employment prospects (iii) readmission rates to hospital and risk factors for readmission. Methods People that were admitted involuntarily over a 15 month period were re-interviewed at one year following discharge. Results Sixty eight people were re-interviewed at one year and this resulted in a follow-up rate of 84%. Prior to discharge, 72% of people reported that their involuntary admission had been necessary however this reduced to 60% after one year. Over one third of people changed their views and the majority of these patients reflected negatively towards their involuntary admission. One quarter of people continued to experience a negative impact on the relationship with a family member and their consultant psychiatrist one year after an involuntary admission, while 13% reported a positive impact. A similar proportion perceived that it had negative consequences in their employment. Within one year, 43% of all patients involuntarily admitted in the study period were readmitted to hospital and half of these admissions were involuntary. Involuntary readmission was associated with a sealing over recovery style. Conclusions Peoples’ perception of the necessity of their involuntary admissions changes significantly over time. Involuntary admissions can have a lasting negative impact on the relationship with family members and treating consultant psychiatrist.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".