Raiders of the <scp>L</scp>ost <scp>A</scp>rt: A review of published evaluations of inpatient mental health care experiences emanating from the <scp>U</scp>nited <scp>K</scp>ingdom, <scp>P</scp>ortugal, <scp>C</scp>anada, <scp>S</scp>witzerland, <scp>G</scp>ermany and <scp>A</scp>ustralia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forming interpersonal therapeutic relationships with mental health Service Users remains a key aspect of the practice of Psychiatric/Mental Health nurses. Given the omnipresence of the concept within the relevant literature the reader could be forgiven for asking: why would Psychiatric/Mental Health nurses opine about something so basic, so ubiquitous and so central to the theory and practice of our discipline? While the authors could locate no substantive argument that refutes the role or value of such relationships, a sizable, growing and reasonably consistent body of work has emerged, which appears to indicate that this centrality and value is not necessarily reflected in many clinical practice settings. Accordingly, we draw on the published evaluations of mental health care emanating from the United Kingdom, Portugal, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Australia, compare these findings and highlight similarities or/and congruence and discuss a range of issues arising out of the findings. Alas, the findings seem to depict a mental health care inpatient experience that is often devoid of warm therapeutic relationships, respectful interactions, information or choice about treatment and any kind of formal/informal 'talk therapy'. Instead such care experiences are personified by: coercion, disinterest, inhumane practices, custodial and controlling practitioners and a gross over use of pharmacological 'treatments'.
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 | 0.028 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".