MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036475917 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.1002576

Interprofessional collaboration in mental health crisis response systems: a scoping review

2015· review· en· W2036475917 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shannon Winters, Lílian Magalhães, Elizabeth Anne Kinsella

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityWestern UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthCLARITYConceptualizationVisionInclusion (mineral)PsychologyHealth careMedicineNursingPolitical sciencePsychiatrySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.457 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207