Review: Impact of urgent youth outpatient mental health care on patient and health system outcomes – a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people often face barriers to psychiatric care and are increasingly seeking crisis services for mental health issues through the emergency department (ED). Urgent psychiatric care models provide youth in crisis with rapid access to time-limited mental health care on an outpatient basis. This scoping review aims to evaluate the impact of such urgent psychiatric services for youth aged 13-25 on patient and health system outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from inception to November 20, 2020. We included studies that described outpatient psychiatric services designed for youth aged 13 to 25, took place in a clinical setting, and offered any combination of assessment, treatment, and referral. We excluded studies describing suicide intervention programmes. RESULTS: Our search yielded six studies, four of which were descriptive studies and two of which were randomized controlled trials. Most studies found that access to urgent psychiatric care for youth was associated with reduced ED volumes, fewer health system costs, and fewer hospitalizations. None of the studies presented evidence that urgent psychiatric services are associated with improved patient symptomatology or functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this scoping review highlight the scarcity of robust evidence evaluating the effectiveness of urgent care for youth mental health. Further experimental studies and a set of standardized quality measures for evaluating these services are needed to bridge this critical gap in mental health care for youth in crisis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".