A qualitative study of young people's perspectives on receiving psychiatric services via televideo.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is critical to consult young people about their experiences. This study addresses the paucity of research on the perspective of young people in general, and in paediatric telepsychiatry specifically. The goal is to understand the experience of young people receiving telepsychiatry. METHOD: Interpretive interactionism (Denzin, 1989) was used to interview 30 young people; immediately following the consultation and four to six weeks later. Analysis occurred via a series of steps in keeping with the interpretive interactionist framework. RESULTS: Four themes arose repeatedly: the encounter with the psychiatrist and experience of having others in the room; the helpfulness of the session; a sense of personal choice during the consultation; and, the technology. Participants highlighted the importance of their relationship with the psychiatrist. Participant's narratives were replete with examples of ways that they actively took responsibility and exerted control within the session itself. CONCLUSION: Young people have a significant role to play in their own care. It is critical that telepsychiatry recommendations be explained and opportunities for young people to express their concerns and discuss alternatives are provided. Further efforts to include young people may include ensuring offering alternate treatments and/or negotiated when recommended treatments are unacceptable and/or resisted.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".