MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes Following a Mental Health Care Intervention for Children in the Emergency Department

2025· article· en· W4407955121 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda S. Newton, Jennifer Thull‐Freedman, Jianling Xie, Teresa Lightbody, Jennifer Woods, Antonia Stang, Kathleen Winston, Josh Larson, Bruce Wright, Michael Stubbs, Matthew Morrissette, Stephen B. Freedman, Samina Ali, Waleed Alquarashi, Brett Burstein, Tyrus Crawford, Andrea Eaton, Gabrielle Freire, Michelle Fric, Naveen Poonai, Roger Zemek

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children’s Hospital FoundationResearch CanadaStollery Children's HospitalAlberta Health ServicesAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthEmergency departmentMedicineIntervention (counseling)Family medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The emergency department (ED) is an important safety net for children experiencing mental and behavioral health crises and can serve as a navigational hub for families seeking support for these concerns. Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of a novel mental health care bundle on child well-being, satisfaction with care, and health system metrics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nonrandomized trial of 2 pediatric EDs in Alberta, Canada. Children younger than 18 years with mental and behavioral health presentations were enrolled before implementation (preimplementation: January 2020 to January 2021), at implementation onset (run-in: February 2021 to June 2021), and during bundle delivery (implementation: July 2021 to June 2022). Intervention: The bundle involved risk stratification, standardized mental health assessments, and provision of an urgent follow-up appointment after the visit, if required. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, child well-being 30 days after the ED visit, was assessed using the Stirling Children's Wellbeing Scale (children aged <14 years) or Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (children aged 14-17 years). Change in well-being between the preimplementation and implementation periods was examined using interrupted time-series analysis and multivariable modeling. Changes in health system metrics (hospitalization, ED length of stay [LOS], and revisits) and care satisfaction were also examined. Results: A total of 1412 patients (median [IQR] age, 13 [11-15] years), with 715 enrolled preimplementation (390 [54.5%] female; 55 [7.7%] First Nations, Inuit, or Métis; 46 [6.4%] South, Southcentral, or Southeast Asian; and 501 [70.1%] White) and 697 enrolled at implementation (357 [51.2%] female; 51 [7.3%] First Nations, Inuit, or Métis; 39 [5.6%] South, Southcentral, or Southeast Asian; and 511 [73.3%] White) were included in the analysis. There were no differences between study periods in well-being. Reduced well-being z scores were associated with mood disorder diagnosis (standardized mean difference, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.02) and nonbinary gender identity (standardized mean difference, -0.41; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.19). The implementation period involved fewer hospitalizations (difference in hospitalizations, -6.9; 95% CI, -10.4 to -3.4) and longer ED LOS (1.1 hours; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.4 hours). There were no differences between study periods in ED revisits or care satisfaction. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the delivery of a care bundle was not associated with higher child well-being 30 days after an ED visit. Hospitalizations did decrease during bundle delivery, but ED LOS did not. These health system findings may have been affected by broader changes in patient volumes and flow processes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, which took place as the study was conducted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292379.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.353 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207