Emergency Psychiatric Services for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: Caregivers’ Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Strains on the mental health system and inaccessible services for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) often force caregivers to bring individuals with ID to the emergency department (ED) when in psychiatric crisis. The purpose of this study was to understand the experience of caregivers and adults with ID and mental health issues, according to caregivers’ perspectives. Method Focus groups were conducted with one group of unpaid caregivers (i.e. family members) and two groups of paid caregivers (i.e. staff from community agencies) from Ontario, Canada. Results Caregivers identified a number of issues centering on a lack of services, on respect, on knowledge and on expertise. Diagnostic overshadowing and overmedication were also prevalent concerns. Conclusions Input from caregivers points to deficiencies in the system that lead them to use the ED when other options have been exhausted. A number of recommendations can be implemented to improve the emergency psychiatric care of adults with ID in the ED.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it