Emergency Department Referrals for Adolescent Urgent Psychiatric Consultation: Comparison of Clinical Characteristics of Repeat-presentations and Single-presentation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: a) to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of repeat-presentations to an adolescent urgent psychiatric clinic, and b) to compare them with single-time presentation. METHOD: This 18-month retrospective study compared repeat-presenters to age and gender matched single-time presenters. Demographic variables included age gender and ethnicity. Clinical variables included reason for referral, family history, diagnosis, recommendations and compliance. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, McNemar's Chi-square tests for matched pairs, and conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 624 assessments 24% (N=151) were repeat-presentations. Compared with single-presentation, repeat-presentation group had a higher proportion of Aboriginal youth (X2 (1) = 108.28 p < 0.01), a higher proportion in special educational placement (X2 (1) = 6.82, p < 0.01), a higher proportion with a family history of anxiety disorders (X2 (1) = 10.62, p = 0.01) and substance use disorder (X2 (1) = 18.99, p < 0.01). Conditional logistic regression results suggested that repeat-presentation group had higher odds of past hospital admission (OR: 3.50, p < 0.01) higher odds of family history of mood disorders (OR: 4.86, p < 0.01) and of antisocial disorders (OR: 4.97, p = 0.02), and lower odds of recommendation compliance (OR: 0.10, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Repeat-presentations for urgent psychiatric consultation constitute a quarter of referrals to the urgent psychiatric clinic. Identifying and addressing factors that contribute to repeat-presentations may, assist in improving treatment compliance by ensuring focused interventions and service delivery for these youth. In turn, this will improve access to the limited urgent services for other youth.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".