A tale of two cultures: examining patient-centered care in a forensic mental health hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several questions remain unanswered regarding the extent to which the principles and practices of patient-centered care are achievable in the context of a forensic mental health hospital. This study examined patient-centered care from the perspectives of patients and providers in a forensic mental health hospital. Patient-centered care was assessed using several measures of complementary constructs. Interviews were conducted with 30 patients and surveys were completed by 28 service providers in a forensic mental health hospital. Patients and providers shared similar views of the therapeutic milieu and recovery orientation of services; however, providers were more likely to perceive the hospital as being potentially unsafe. Overall, the findings indicated that characteristics of patient-centered care may be found within a forensic mental health hospital. The principles of patient-centered care can be integrated into service delivery in forensic mental health hospitals, though special attention to providers' perceptions of safety is needed.
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".