Emergency department care experiences among youth with mental health concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency departments (EDs) are important for mental health (MH) care among youth, however, are often ill equipped to meet their needs, resulting in care dissatisfaction. The objective of this research is to better understand the ED care experiences among youth with MH concerns. Data was used from a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study comparing ED care experiences among individuals who identify as equity-deserving with those who do not. Equity deserving groups are defined as individuals who face shared barriers to participating in society and care as a result of identifying with a certain community. For this sub-group analysis, participants who identified as youth aged 16-24 with a MH concern were compared to age-matched controls. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including chi squared tests were used to evaluate differences in sociodemographic and ED visit data between groups. Qualitative micronarratives were thematically analyzed to contextualize quantitative findings. A total of 81 youth with MH concerns and 108 youth controls were included in the analysis. Compared to controls, youth with MH concerns experienced greater: negative effects of their identity on ED experiences; disrespect in the ED; and negative feelings throughout their ED visit (p<0.001 for all). Themes identified in the qualitative analysis supported these findings including judgement and stigmatization, unmet care needs, lack of MH expertise and community connections, and negative impacts of the ED environment on MH experiences. This study adds to evidence demonstrating that youth with MH concerns have largely negative experiences with ED care in comparison to age-matched control group. Interventions to improve care could include improving MH expertise in the ED with existing or new staff and enhancing connections to community MH resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".