Crisis plans in mental health: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crisis situations are frequent among people with mental health disorders. Several interventions have been developed to act in prevention, including crisis plans recognized as particularly effective in reducing coercive measures. In the literature, several models of crisis plans are proposed with similar aims and contents. Based on the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, a scoping review was conducted to map the state of knowledge on crisis plans in adult mental health settings. The literature search conducted on six databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Cochrane) yielded 2435 articles. Of these, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 78 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools, and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Content analysis identified a typology of crisis plans: (1) the legal crisis plan and (2) the formal crisis plan. Five modalities were identified for its completion: the sections, the moment, the completion steps, the people involved and the training of key actors. Most identified outcomes are consistent with the main purpose of the intervention, which is crisis prevention. However, the most identified outcomes focused on the service user's recovery and indicated that crisis plans could provide an opportunity to operationalize recovery in mental healthcare, thus suggesting an evolution in the aim of the intervention. Future research should further focus on the modalities of crisis plans to guide the implementation in clinical practice.
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 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".