Intervening with persons experiencing mental illness and substance use: Patient perceptions of helpful care during psychiatric hospitalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background30 - 50% of people with mental illness also experience a substance use problem or concurrent disorder (CD). This dual diagnosis is associated with complex health and social problems, high suicide risk and poor longterm outcomes. Persons with CD have unique needs which present significant challenges for health providers during psychiatric hospitalization. While hospital personnel play a significant role in promoting health and well-being, what “helpful care” means to persons with CD during psychiatric hospitalization remains unexplored, and the health benefits unknown. Research QuestionWhat actual and/or potential interventions, attitudes, actions, and behaviours are perceived as “helpful” by persons with CD during psychiatric hospitalization?MethodsQualitative-descriptive design; individual, semi-structured audio-recorded interviews with 12 inpatient adults diagnosed with CD.ResultsParticipants reported both beneficial and harmful practices.Examples of helpful interventions occurred within 3 distinct areas: 1) building a therapeutic relationship; 2) engaging in health-promoting activities within a healing environment; 3) managing substance use in tandem with mental illness. ImplicationsFindings highlight the importance of relational interventions for persons with CD. This includes actions aimed at tailoring care to fit each individual while offering interpersonal approaches, attitudes and behaviours that are collaborative, caring and respectful. Helpful activities include assisting with daily care, advocating for time outside, offering teaching and learning sessions and facilitating discharge. There is an urgent call to prevent harmful practices and to understand and promote interventions consistent with whole person care for hospitalized clients with CD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".