Informal coercion in inpatient mental healthcare: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Comprehending informal coercion, which encompasses a wide range of phenomena characterised by subtle and non-legalised pressures, can be complex. Its use is underestimated within the continuum of coercion in mental health, although its application may have a negative impact on the persons involved. A better understanding of informal coercion is crucial for improving mental healthcare and informing future research. This scoping review aims to explore the nature, extent and consequences of informal coercion in mental health hospitalisation to clarify this phenomenon, establish its boundaries more clearly and identify knowledge gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the methodological framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute, this scoping review will encompass 10 key steps. Literature searches will be conducted in electronic databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses. Then, a search in grey literature sources (Open Grey, Grey Guide), psychiatric and mental health journals, government agencies and among the references of selected studies will be conducted. The research will include all literature focusing on informal coercion with inpatients aged 18 and above. Data will be extracted and analysed descriptively, mapping the available knowledge and identifying thematic patterns. The quality of included studies will be assessed using appropriate appraisal tools. An exploratory search was conducted in November 2023 and will be updated in December 2023 when the selection of relevant evidence will begin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this study involves the analysis of existing published literature. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presentations at relevant conferences. They will be shared with people living with mental disorders and professionals working in mental healthcare.
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 | 0.136 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.017 |
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".