Exploring the Experiences of Persons Who Frequently Visit the Emergency Department for Mental Health-Related Reasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative study, the experiences of persons who frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for mental health-related reasons were explored. Interpretive Description guided the design, and data were collected through interviews with 10 adults who made 12+ ED visits within a 1-year time frame (2015). Thematic analysis was used to analyze data inductively. The participants' experiences were described with the help of three themes emerging from the data: The Experience, The Providers, and Protective Factors. The participants felt compelled to come to hospital. For them, every visit was necessary, and dismissal of their needs by staff was interpreted as disrespect and prejudice. We noted differences in ED utilization patterns according to psychiatric diagnosis, and more research is needed to explore the phenomenon of frequent use by particular patient populations. Furthermore, health care providers implementing interventions designed to improve emergency care should consider tailored approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".