MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048824263 · doi:10.1111/inm.12776

Contact between patients with suicidal ideation and nurses in mental health wards: Development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire

2020· review· en· W3048824263 on OpenAlexaff
Joeri Vandewalle, Veerle Duprez, Dimitri Beeckman, Ann Van Hecke, Sofie Verhaeghe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Nursing · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsSuicidal ideationConstruct validityContent validityMental healthExploratory factor analysisPsychologyFace validityClinical psychologyMedicinePsychometricsPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide prevention and treatment opportunities often depend on interpersonal contact between patients and professionals. Presently, there is a lack of valid and reliable instruments to obtain the perspective of patients with suicidal ideation regarding their contact with professionals in mental health wards. This was a three-stage study to develop and psychometrically evaluate a questionnaire: the Contact with Nurses from the perspective of Patients with Suicidal ideation (CoNuPaS). First, the construct was defined by a systematic review, qualitative study, and face validity among experts. Second, the content was validated through a Delphi procedure with professional experts (n = 14) and cognitive interviews with hospitalized patients (n = 12). Third, using a sample of adult patients with suicidal ideation in the past year (n = 405), the psychometric properties were assessed by an exploratory factor analysis, a test-retest procedure, and the internal consistency. The CoNuPaS comprises 23 items and two subsections, to examine patients' perceptions of contact experiences with nurses (CoNuPaS-experience) and what they find important in that contact (CoNuPaS-importance). The subsections comprise four components: encountering a space to express suicidal thoughts and explore needs, being recognized as a unique and self-determining individual, encountering nurses' availability/information-sharing/transparency on expectations, and trusting nurses in communication about suicidality. Content validity scores were excellent (0.78-1.00); test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient and internal consistency were >0.90. Thus, the CoNuPaS demonstrated good psychometric properties. The availability of a valid questionnaire to examine patient-nurse contact in mental health wards is central to improving understanding of nurses' contributions to suicide prevention and suicidal ideation treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health NursingSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207