A Scoping Review of Emergency Department Discharge Instructions for Children and Adolescents With Mental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most young people under the age of 25 years with mental health presentations to the emergency department (ED) are discharged home, several studies suggest discharge instructions are inadequate. We conducted a scoping review to characterize and map the literature, identify research gaps, and prioritize targeted areas for future reviews for ED discharge instructions for young people with mental disorders. METHODS: Our review was conducted in an iterative approach with 6 stages including identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, data extraction, collaring and summarizing, and stakeholder engagement. We characterized the available information on discharge instruction interventions using the Behavior Change Wheel. RESULTS: Of the 805 potential publications screened, 25 were included for extraction. Nine of the 25 articles focused on suicide or self-harm, 6 were on mental health in general or mixed groups, and 9 focused on alcohol, tobacco, or substance use in general. Five studies included younger children (ie, less than 12 years) but ages ranged significantly among studies. Education and persuasion were intervention functions most commonly reported in publications (n = 13 and n = 12, respectively). From the policy categories, recommendations regarding service provision were most frequently made from four publications. Descriptions of theory were limited in publications. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature regarding discharge instructions in the ED for youth with mental disorders is focused on certain content areas (eg, self injurious behaviors, substance use) with more work required in chronic mental disorders that make up a significant proportion of ED visits. Research that extends beyond education and with theoretical underpinnings to explain how and why various interventions work would be useful for clinicians, policy-makers, and other researchers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".