Processes of co-response crisis mental health models: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Police services assume the role of first responders for mental health crisis situations, providing no mental health support risking police-inflicted harm to the person in crisis. Advances in mental health and police reform have produced alternative response models like co-response that includes both police officers and trained mental health service providers. This scoping review synthesises knowledge to present key processes that facilitate co-response models.Method Covidence software was used by two independent reviewers to search eleven databases with terms including ‘co-response’, ‘police partnerships’, and ‘crisis response team’. These reviewers screened 2690 titles and abstracts and 109 full-texts to include 76 articles. Nine independent coders employed thematic content analysis.Results Three themes and seven sub-themes were determined as key processes of co-response. Decriminalising mental health involves re-evaluating the role of police and reducing reliance on police in crisis mental health response. Interprofessional collaboration features partnerships between existing services, unifying strategies, and establishing multidisciplinary teams. A piloting phase permits monitoring and evaluation and highlights the diversity of co-response models.Discussion Co-response crisis mental health models are increasingly common, heterogeneous in design and operation, and built upon existing infrastructure. Future inquiries could include trauma-informed care and the evaluation of civilian-led models..
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".