Experiences of individuals presenting to the emergency department for mental health reasons: A systematic mixed studies review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Emergency departments the world over have seen substantial increases in the number of individuals presenting for mental health reasons. However, we have a limited understanding of their experiences of care. The aim of this review was to systematically examine and synthesise literature relating to the experiences of individuals presenting to emergency department for mental health reasons. Methods: We followed Pluye and Hong’s seven-step approach to conducting a systematic mixed studies review. Studies were included if they investigated adult mental health experiences in emergency department from the users’ perspective. Studies describing proxy, carer/family or care provider experiences were excluded. Results: Sixteen studies were included. Thematic synthesis identified three themes and associated subthemes. Theme 1 – ED staff can make-or-break and ED experience – comprised: Feeling understood and heard; Engaging in judgement-free interactions; Receiving therapeutic support; Being actively and passively invalidated for presenting to the ED; and Once a psych patient, always a psych patient. Theme 2 – Being in the ED environment is counter-therapeutic – comprised: Waiting for an ‘extremely’ long time; and Lacking privacy. Theme 3 was Having nowhere else to go. Conclusions: The experiences described by individuals presenting to emergency department for mental health reasons were mostly poor. The results illustrate a need for increased mental health education and training for all emergency department staff. Employment of specialist and lived experience workers should also be prioritised to support more therapeutic relationships and emergency department environments. In addition, greater investment in mental health systems is required to manage the current crisis and ensure future sustainability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".