MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399895238 · doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00594-y

Co-designing discharge communication interventions for mental health visits to the pediatric emergency department: a mixed-methods study

2024· article· en· W4399895238 on OpenAlexafffund
Amber Z. Ali, Bruce Wright, Janet Curran, Joelle Fawcett-Arsenault, Amanda S. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesDalhousie UniversityWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsEmergency departmentPsychological interventionMental healthMedicineMedical emergencyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Discharge communication is essential to convey information regarding the care provided and follow-up plans after a visit to a hospital emergency department (ED), but it can be lacking for visits for pediatric mental health crises. Our objective was to co-design and conduct usability testing of new discharge communication interventions to improve pediatric mental health discharge communication. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases using experience-based co-design (EBCD). In phase 1 (Sep 2021 to Jan 2022), five meetings were conducted with a team of six parents and two clinicians to co-design new ED discharge communication interventions for pediatric mental health care. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in team discussions and participant feedback related to discharge communication improvement and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model was used to identify strategies to support the delivery of the new interventions. After meeting five, team members completed the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) to evaluate the co-design experience. In phase 2 (Apr to Jul 2022), intervention usability and satisfaction were evaluated by a new group of parents, youth aged 16-24 years, ED physicians, and nurses (n = 2 of each). Thematic analysis was used to identify usability issues and a validated 5-point Likert survey was used to evaluate user satisfaction. Evaluation results were used by the co-design team to finalize the interventions and delivery strategies. RESULTS: Two discharge communication interventions were created: a brochure for families and clinicians to use during the ED visit, and a text-messaging system for families after the visit. There was high satisfaction with engagement in phase 1 (overall mean PPEET score, 4.5/5). In phase 2, user satisfaction was high (mean clinician score, 4.4/5; mean caregiver/youth score, 4.1/5) with both interventions. Usability feedback included in the final intervention versions included instructions on intervention use and ensuring the text-messaging system activates within 12-24 h of discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The interventions produced by this co-design initiative have the potential to address gaps in current discharge practices. Future testing is required to evaluate the impact on patients, caregivers, and health care system use after the ED visit.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.549
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.078 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207