Inpatients had mostly negative experiences of seclusion during short term treatment in a mental health facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meehan T, Vermeer C, Windsor C. Patients' perceptions of seclusion: a qualitative investigation . J Adv Nurs2000 Feb; 31 : 370 –7. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do patients experience seclusion during short term inpatient treatment in a mental health facility? Semi-structured interviews. 2 open, acute care units of a large tertiary mental health facility in Queensland, Australia. 12 patients (58% men) who were 18–52 years of age and were secluded in the previous 7 days (mean duration 3.4 h). Semi-structured, thematically organised interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were checked for errors against the audiotaped versions and were analysed using the process of meaning categorisation. Themes were identified and coded to produce categories. All members of the research team agreed on the final categorisations. These broad categories were further analysed, and themes were used to reflect patients' experiences of seclusion. 5 recurrent themes emerged. (1) Patients described the use of seclusion . Some … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DMeehan%26rft.auinit1%253DT.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D370%26rft.epage%253D377%26rft.atitle%253DPatients%2527%2Bperceptions%2Bof%2Bseclusion%253A%2Ba%2Bqualitative%2Binvestigation.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2648.2000.01289.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10672095%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01289.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10672095&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F3%2F4%2F128.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085460800033&link_type=ISI
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".