Interprofessional collaboration in mental health crisis response systems: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Post deinstitutionalization saw the rise of mental health crisis (MHC) response in Canada. First points of contact for individuals in a MHC are often police services or emergency departments. Professionals in these areas may report feeling unprepared, ill equipped, and a lack of confidence to work with clients in crisis. Police indicate that this work is time consuming, demanding, and "not their job". Entry points can exacerbate the crisis given the chaotic, over-stimulating and frightening environment of emergency departments and the perceived threat of police officers. Despite the outcry of support for working more collaboratively, little is known about the impact Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) has in mental health crisis response systems (MHCRS). PURPOSE: Given this challenge, the aim of this scoping review is to contribute to understanding the current state of knowledge related to IPC in MHCRS. METHODS: A scoping reviews was conducted to address the research topic. RESULTS: Review of the literature identified 18 articles for inclusion, 5 experimental or exploratory papers, 7 models of care, and 6 discussion papers. Analysis identified the following themes: Support for interprofessional collaboration, quest for improved care delivery system, merging distinct visions of care, and challenges to interprofessional collaboration. Implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed, as well as issues in the literature related to: Lack of conceptual clarity, absent client perspectives, unequal representation across sectors, and a young and emergent body of literature. CONCLUSION: Key concepts need better conceptualization, and further empirical research is needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Conceptualizing mental health crisis (MHC) response as occurring within a system of services, rather than independent sectors, is critical to meeting the needs of clients. Purposefully built in mechanisms to sustain collaboration across care teams and services are required. Merging the distinct, and at times conflicting, visions of care espoused by the diverse sectors involved in MHC response requires deliberate effort.
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 | 0.020 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".