Experiences of the psychiatric specialist health services – The perspective of relatives of inpatients with severe depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe experiences of encountering the psychiatric specialist health services as a relative of an inpatient with severe depression. A qualitative and descriptive design using a phenomenographic approach was chosen. Twenty-four adult relatives, representing different ages, sex, level of education and relationship, were individually interviewed. Approval was given by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Norway (South East). Three descriptive categories emerged: Being in need of help, Being a resource and a participant and Being confident with the health care, with two conceptions each constituting the relatives’ experiences of the psychiatric specialist health services. When relatives perceive that their next of kin is more severely depressed than the health professionals indicate, they describe it as a battle to obtain help. Relatives have knowledge of - and experience with the depressed person, and wish to share this with the staff. The relatives describe uncertainty as to whether the patient received high-quality care due to varying competence levels among mental health personnel. In conclusion, relatives’ experiences and knowledge about the depressed person were not acknowledged as a matter of course. Thus, psychiatric specialist health services must take relatives' knowledge into account and initiate collaboration and support.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".