The Use of Alternative Rooms in Forensic and Regular Psychiatric Units: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Emotional regulation, distress and relational conflicts often occur during hospitalization and rehabilitation on psychiatric units, especially in patients suffering from severe and persistent mental disorders. While widely used in children and geriatric patients, little literature exists on the use and outcomes of alternative rooms in the context of forensic and regular psychiatric units for adult patients. Considering the scarcity of the literature on alternative use, this study is motivated by the following research question: what are the main uses and outcomes of alternative rooms in the context of forensic and regular psychiatric units? The main objective of this study is to conduct a scoping review of the use and outcomes of alternative rooms for the context of psychiatric inpatients. (2) Methods: A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases of MedLine, Web of Science, PsycNet (PsycINFO) and Google Scholar from their inception dates until 2022. (3) Results: A total of nine studies were analyzed. Sensory, multisensory rooms, Snoezelen, and comfort rooms are the types of alternative rooms discussed in these studies. Distress and anxiety reduction, increase in self-esteem, impact on seclusion rates, patient-staff communication and alliances, heart and respiration rate reduction, and improvement of alexithymia were identified among the main uses and outcomes of these rooms. (4) Conclusions: The scarcity of literature available to draw information from for this review and possible impact on improving patient outcomes and quality of treatment in psychiatric units opens the door to future studies to better understand the efficacy of such rooms. Research into the ideal implementation tactics of such rooms, long-term outcomes, and the influence on diverse patient demographics could be areas of improvement in the use of alternative rooms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".