Experiences and Perspectives of Families of Psychiatric Hospitalisation of Their Adult Family Member: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families who encounter the hospitalisation of an adult family member for a serious mental illness are frequently excluded from treatment and care planning. It has been established that family involvement is beneficial and positively impacts health outcomes; however, health systems continue to constrain collaborative practices. The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to explore families' views of their experiences of psychiatric hospitalisation of their adult family member and the barriers and benefits for the uptake and delivery of collaborative relationships between mental health clinicians, families, family carers, and consumers. In September 2022, systematic searches were conducted for primary studies in: CINAHL, PsycInfo, PubMed, Web of Science, and dissertations in ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global. The searches were updated February and September 2024. Retrieved articles were managed in Covidence and screened by three reviewers at the title and abstract and full text stages. Following screening, a total of 27 articles formed the review dataset. Study quality was assessed using the well validated Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Three themes emerged from the review: (1) Impenetrable System-'Expert-itis'; (2) Perpetuating Family Invisibility; and (3) Unlocking the Door. Evidence consistently described participants' experiences of inhumane professional attitudes and practices in hospital mental health services. Further research on the types of interventions and communication strategies to promote family engagement and involvement in mental health service design and delivery is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".