Defining the concept of mental dysregulation in patients requiring ambulance and/or emergency department care: protocol for a Delphi consensus study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: From the patient and staff perspective, care delivery for patients experiencing a mental health problem in ambulance and emergency department (ED) settings is challenging. There is no uniform and internationally accepted concept to reflect people with a mental health problem who require emergency care, be it for, or as a result of, a mental health or physical health problem. On initial presentation to the emergency service provider (ambulance or ED), the cause of their healthcare condition/s (mental health and/or physical health) is often initially unknown. Due to this (1) the prevalence and range of underlying causes (mental and/or physical) of the patients presenting condition is unknown; (2) misattribution of physical symptoms to a mental health problem can occur and (3) diagnosis and treatment of the initial somatic complaint and cause(s) of the mental/physical health problem may be hindered.This study will name and define a new concept: 'mental dysregulation' in the context of ambulance and ED settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Delphi study, informed by a rapid literature review, will be undertaken. For the literature review, a steering group (ie, persons with lived experience, ED and mental health clinicians, academics) will systematically search the literature to provide a working definition of the concept: mental dysregulation. Based on this review, statements will be generated regarding (1) the definition of the concept; (2) possible causes of mental dysregulation and (3) observable behaviours associated with mental dysregulation. These statements will be rated in three Delphi rounds to achieve consensus by an international expert panel (comprising persons with lived experience, clinicians and academics). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (reference number: 258-000-2023_Geurt van der Glind). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication(s), scientific conference(s) and to key stakeholders.
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 | 0.159 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.011 |
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".