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 OpenAlexaff
Ontlotlile I. Mpheng, Belinda Scrooby, Emmerentia du Plessis

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurationisSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207