The prevalence and impact of adolescent hospitalization to adult psychiatric units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing psychiatric hospitalizations among adolescents and constrained hospital resources, there are times when youth are hospitalized in adult inpatient psychiatry units. Evidence on the prevalence of this practice and associated impacts is lacking. AIMS: We sought to explore the prevalence, determinants, and outcomes related to the hospitalization of adolescents aged 12-17 years on adult inpatient psychiatry units in Ontario. METHODS: Using health administrative data, we constructed a cohort of adolescents with an inpatient psychiatric admission in Ontario (2007-2011). We classified adolescents as having an admission to an adult psychiatry unit or to other inpatient units. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) for factors associated with adult admission, as well as risk ratios (RR) for the impact of adult admission on length of stay, discharge against medical advice, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Over the study period, 22.6% of adolescents with a psychiatric hospitalization (n = 16 998) had an admission to an adult psychiatry unit. Older age (16 vs. 15 years: PR = 2.27, 95% CI = 2.07-2.48; 17 vs. 15 years: PR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.66-3.18), rural residence (PR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.38-1.55), psychotic (PR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.15-1.36) or personality disorder (PR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.41-1.80) diagnoses, and involuntary status (PR = 2.18, 95% CI = 2.05-2.31) were independently associated with adult admission. Adolescents admitted to adult units were more likely to be discharged against medical advice (RR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.45-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in four adolescent psychiatric admissions occurs on an adult psychiatric unit. These findings help to fill gaps in the prior literature, and highlight the need for further research to inform policy decisions and resource allocation for adolescent inpatient psychiatric care.
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 | 0.001 | 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".