49 Exploring parental acceptability of universal psychosocial screening in the pediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary Subject area Mental Health Background Mental health concerns among children and adolescents presenting to the emergency department (ED) are on the rise. Universal screening can facilitate early identification and management of these concerns, mitigating significant long-term morbidity and mortality. The efficacy of psychosocial screening in the ED is not only determined by accurate identification of concerns, but by downstream resource-seeking behaviours to address these concerns. For many children and adolescents, parents hold a key role in determining their access to care. Thus, parental attitudes and perceptions of psychosocial screening may influence resource-seeking behaviours and predict a youth’s ability to access support. Objectives Given the limited understanding of parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in the ED, we aimed to qualitatively explore parents’ attitudes towards screening with MyHEARTSMAP, an electronic self/proxy administered psychosocial screening tool. We also quantified resource-seeking behaviours and explored barriers to seeking care. Design/Methods This was a nested qualitative study conducted during the 30-day follow-up period of a larger prospective cohort study. Eligible youth and their accompanying parent/guardian completed a self/proxy psychosocial screen using MyHEARTSMAP. Youth who screened positive were provided with recommendations and resources for support. 30 days (+ 5 days) after their ED visit, parents participated in semi-structured follow-up interviews to share their attitudes, perceptions, and thoughts around the screening and care-seeking process. Results Of the 171 participants requiring resources for support, 124 (72.5%; 95% CI 65.2-79.1%) completed the follow-up interview. Most parents endorsed positive perceptions of the screening process, describing it as an “eye-opening” process that “sparked conversation”.74.2% (95% CI 65.6-81.6%) of participants also agreed with the support recommendations they received during their ED visit. In terms of resource seeking, as displayed in Figure 1, only 41 participants (33.1%; 95% CI 24.9-42.1%) attempted to access support services. Other families felt identified concerns were mild and “not serious enough” to warrant resources, though many expressed an intention to seek care if the concerns escalated. Conclusion Parental perceptions of psychosocial screening in the ED were favourable and encouraging, with a majority of participants expressing an understanding and appreciation of the process. This lends support to the implementation of universal psychosocial screening in the ED. Despite positive attitudes towards screening, only a fraction actually attempted to access care. This incongruence may reflect the persisting view that mental health holds low priority and suggests a need for increased education on the importance of seeking timely mental health 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".