Opening the door: inviting youth and parent perspectives on youth mental health emergency department use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian Emergency Departments (EDs) have seen increasing use by children and youth for mental health concerns in recent years. This trend is likely a result of several complex factors, and researcher-posed potential explanations include gaps or access problems in primary care or mental health services, increasing prevalence or awareness of mental disorders and fear of potentially harmful outcomes, or expectations of need for urgent specialist care. Youth, parent, or caregiver perceptions and reasons for increasing mental health ED use may differ, and to date have been underrepresented in informing research directions. We sought to engage with youth and parents or caregivers served by a Canadian tertiary paediatric health centre to: 1) inform research directions for an emerging program of research in child and youth ED use for mental health care; and 2) develop strategies to support ongoing patient engagement in our research. METHODS: Youth and parents were consulted to inform the development of a research engagement strategy. Partnerships with local community agencies facilitated supported engagement with both youth and parents. Group and individual in-person engagement opportunities were offered, as well as opportunities for written submissions and information sharing. RESULTS: Youth and parents identified specific mechanisms to support engagement and for sharing ongoing opportunities and progress, including providing multiple platforms for engagement, offering separate opportunities for youth and parents or caregivers, and minimizing the potential for distress by ensuring appropriate supports and providing alternative opportunities for feedback, including written submissions. They identified lack of timely access to mental health care in primary care and community mental health settings, and accessibility, dependability, and familiarity of the ED as areas for further research. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to mitigate potential concerns regarding distress, readiness for participation, literacy, and protection of privacy were highlighted as important considerations. Youth and parents were interested in ongoing research engagement through consultation and information sharing. Youth and parents identified areas of interest for research and refined the research team's proposed research directions by adding contextualizing information. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".