MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405089426 · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11899-9

‘We tried our best... it wasn’t great’: a qualitative study of clinician experiences on child psychiatry wards at the height of COVID-19

2024· article· en· W4405089426 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rachel Kronick, Isabella Kakish, Ana Gómez-Carrillo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMental healthChild and adolescent psychiatryPublic healthMedicineThematic analysisHealth informaticsContext (archaeology)Health administrationQualitative researchPsychiatryPandemicNursingNursing researchHealth careHealth services researchCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changing public health and hospital protocols during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic shaped the provision of inpatient mental health care. While a growing body of research explores the challenges of restrictions on adult psychiatric wards, the impact on clinical teams and epidemiological trends in youth mental health, no research has explored inpatient psychiatric hospital services for child and adolescent psychiatry during the pandemic. This study seeks to understand how clinicians in Canada working in child and adolescent mental health wards experienced caring for their patients while navigating pandemic hospital restrictions. Following a qualitative descriptive methodology and also drawing on institutional ethnography we generated data using two methods: 1) an online survey of clinicians across the country asking about experiences providing care and COVID restrictions and 2) in-depth, semi-structured interviews with clinicians. Data from 54 surveys and 14 interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis yielding two major themes. First, clinicians felt that clinical care was compromised with likely impact on patient outcomes. Second, respondents reported that the context of the pandemic provoked tensions and resistance within the clinical teams and the institution. Our findings have important implications not only for future public health crises, but also for rethinking how psychiatric care is provided and prioritized. This study points to the need for 1) mechanisms which support collaborative decision making at the institutional level, to ensure regulations are more flexible and can adapt to the needs of child mental health patients; and 2) that child psychiatry prioritize generating spaces of ethical reflection for clinical teams and institutional decision-makers so that paternalism does not trump principles of primum non-nocere (first, do no harm), autonomy and reciprocity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.022
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→