Role of Psychiatric Hospitals in the Equitable Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the feasibility of offering COVID-19 vaccinations to patients in inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs). METHODS: Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine relationships among measures of influenza immunization, transmission of transition records, and attainment of follow-up care with data from 1,602 IPFs in 2018 and the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index. RESULTS: One-quarter of IPFs were in counties with high or very high COVID-19 vulnerability. On average, 84% of patients at IPFs were screened for influenza immunization status and were offered an immunization if indicated. Only 57% of patients had their records transmitted to another provider within 24 hours of discharge, and 50% had a follow-up visit with a mental health provider within 30 days. Scores on attainment of follow-up care were worse in counties with higher COVID-19 vulnerability. CONCLUSIONS: IPFs may be well positioned to offer COVID-19 vaccinations but will need new processes and improved rates of follow-up care to ensure that patients receive the second dose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".