Disability and Functioning of Patients Who Use Psychiatric Hospital Emergency Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: First, to compare the level of disability and functioning of patients who access psychiatric emergency services by diagnosis and service use frequency. Second, to compare patients who access psychiatric emergency services to the general population in terms of demographics and the level of disability and functioning. METHODS: Data from 420 patients were obtained by time-based sampling from August 2011 to February 2012 in the emergency department of a psychiatric hospital that provides services to adolescents and adults. The 2011 and 2012 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Monitor surveys were used as a representative adult general population sample. Disability and functioning were measured using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS). RESULTS: Variation in WHODAS scores among psychiatric emergency patients was observed within but not between diagnostic categories and within frequency of use of these services categories. Psychiatric emergency patients had a mean WHODAS score of 38.0, significantly higher (P < .001) than the mean score of 5.0 for the general population; however, there was overlap in the distribution of WHODAS scores. Compared to the general population, psychiatric emergency patients were more likely to be men, younger in age, never married, and unemployed or a student. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric emergency patients are demographically different when compared to the general population. Furthermore, since disability and functioning are highly variable within but not between psychiatric diagnostic categories, data on disability and functioning should be collected for psychiatric emergency patients, in addition to diagnosis data, to more accurately align patients with the appropriate intensity of services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".