MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309878496 · doi:10.4102/curationis.v45i1.2349

Healthcare practitioners’ views of comprehensive care to mental healthcare users in a community setting

2022· article· en· W4309878496 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurationis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersNorth-West University
KeywordsHealth careNonprobability samplingNursingMental healthcareMental healthQualitative researchRehabilitationExploratory researchMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive care means ensuring quality services, protecting rights, promoting available social services and using protocols and standards that emphasise quality assurance for all mental healthcare users (MHCUs). It also involves advocacy, early detection and rehabilitation, as well as encouraging appropriate patient-centred care to ensure adequate psychiatric care. However, according to research, there is a vacuum in the provision of comprehensive mental healthcare to MHCUs. As a result, there is an immediate need to consult healthcare providers on providing comprehensive community-based care to MHCUs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the views of healthcare practitioners on the aspects that hinder providing comprehensive care for MHCUs, the role players needed to execute comprehensive care and what can be done to improve comprehensive care for MHCUs in the community setting in one of the subdistricts of the North West province (NWP), South Africa (SA). METHOD: A qualitative research design that was exploratory, descriptive and contextual was adopted. The healthcare practitioners that took part in the study were chosen through purposive sampling. The sample size was established through data saturation, and 19 telephonic semistructured individual interviews were held with registered nurses and one medical doctor. Tesch's eight steps were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The four main themes identified were: (1) healthcare practitioners' understanding of comprehensive care to MHCUs, (2) factors hindering comprehensive care to MHCUs, (3) stakeholders needed for providing comprehensive care to MHCUs and (4) suggestions for improving comprehensive care to MHCUs. CONCLUSION: Healthcare practitioners in the community advocate for the need for comprehensive psychiatric treatment. They are of the view that greater coordination of psychiatric services will improve mental treatment and minimise relapse in MHCUs. To sustain integrated psychiatry, stakeholders and other psychiatric programmes must be included.Contribution: The findings and conclusions of this study indicated that improvement is needed in mental healthcare in general, and all relevant aspects to improve comprehensive care among MHCUs in a community setting should be given full attention.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.326 · 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