Predicting Resource Use of Community Mental Health Services at the Transition from Inpatient Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental health is a major health problem for many Canadians. Methods to predict expected mental health care resource use are an essential component in balancing the needs of the population and equitable allocation of limited health care resources. This research examined the relationship between the resource use of community mental health services and the characteristics of their clients using a case-mix classification approach. \n \nA scoping review showed that most of the research on this topic focused on inpatient psychiatry settings. The number of identified studies (n=17) and case-mix systems (n=32) reflected the modest level of research activity in this area. \n \nSecondary analyses were done with a sample of adults discharged from a local psychiatric hospital unit in Ontario (n=4,688 discharges) that was tracked to examine the use of community mental health services after discharge. Only about half of the discharges subsequently used publicly funded community mental health services. Further, only n=1,207 discharges had services initiated within 30 days and were not censored by readmission. Clinical characteristics measured at discharge from inpatient psychiatry were associated with observed use and high use (as binary variables) of community mental health services post-discharge. Usage of services specially designed for persons at risk of self-harm and harm to others (as binary variables) were also associated with higher risk of self-harm and harm to others measured at discharge. \n \nA community episode of 90 days from first contact with the community mental health agency post-discharge appeared to be the most practical for implementation. Two high performing case-mix classification systems were examined for their possible predictive utility for post-discharge community mental health service use. The System for Classification of In-Patient Psychiatry (SCIPP) achieved 6% explained variance of community resource use for an episode. When prior contact with the community mental health agency within 30 days prior to the inpatient episode was included, the model with SCIPP explained up to 14.1% of variance in resource use. The Australian Mental Health Classification (AMHCC) was found to be not immediately applicable outside of the Australian context, and most of its explained variance was likely attributed to the “phases of care” that are subjectively determined by clinicians at the beginning of an episode. The remaining components of the AMHCC explained only 1.2% of variance in resource use. \n \nUsing machine learning, new classification models using discharge clinical characteristics achieved up to 12% of explained variance in cross-validation. The two simplest decision tree models showed similar performance in cross-validation as more complex models. Although machine learning identified relevant relationships between clinical characteristics and observed resource use, some relationships required human expertise to adjust to align with the goals of the health care system. This was exemplified by a manual decision tree model that achieved 11.1% explained variance on the development data set. These results pointed to the need for additional research to: expand the sample size; include a broader range of community mental health service users; use more contemporaneous clinical assessment data measured at community service initiation; and broaden the participation of community mental health agencies. Although clinical characteristics measured at discharge yielded only modest predictive utility, designing a system that could leverage both inpatient information and community agency assessment information could improve both predictive utility and care integration across the care continuum. Further development of case-mix classification for community mental health will require a broad collaboration across the health care system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".