MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214925334 · doi:10.1177/10398562211051252

Private psychiatric hospital care in Australia: a descriptive analysis of casemix and outcomes

2021· article· en· W3214925334 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Tarun Bastiampillai, William Pring, Steve Kisely, Stephen Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychiatryMental healthDescriptive statisticsMoodFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide a rapid clinical update on casemix, average length of stay, and the effectiveness of Australian private psychiatric hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of the publicly available patient data from the Australian Private Hospitals Association Private Psychiatric Hospitals Data Reporting and Analysis Service website, from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. This was compared with corresponding reporting on public and private hospitals from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network. RESULTS: In 2019-2020, there were 72 private psychiatric hospitals in Australia with 3582 acute beds. There were 42,942 inpatients with 1,286,470 days of care, and a mean length of stay 19.6 days (SD 13.9) for the financial year 2019-2020. The main diagnoses were major affective and other mood disorders (49%), and alcohol and other substance abuse disorders (21%). Clinician-rated outcome measures, that is, the HoNOS, showed an improvement effect size of 1.64, while the patient-rated MHQ-14 showed an improvement effect size of 1.18. Results are similar for previous years. CONCLUSIONS: Private psychiatric hospitals provide substantial, effective 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207