MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of early intervention psychosis services on hospitalisation experiences: a qualitative study with young people and their carers

2024· other· en· W6921565812 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisQualitative researchFeelingIntervention (counseling)Mental healthHealth carePsychosisFocus group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While a core aim of early intervention psychosis services (EIPS) is to prevent hospitalisation, many with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) will require inpatient care. We explored young people’s (YP) and their carers’ hospitalisation experiences prior to and during EIPS engagement and how factors across these services influenced these experiences. Methods Using purposive sampling, we recruited twenty-seven YP, all of whom had been involved with the hospital system at some stage, and twelve support persons (parents and partners of YP) from state and federally funded EIPS in Australia with different models of care and integration with secondary mental health care. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted face-to-face or via phone. A diverse research team (including lived experience, clinician, and academic researchers) used an inductive thematic analysis process. Results Four key themes were identified as influential in shaping participant’s hospital experiences and provide ideas for an approach to care that is improved by the effective coordination of that care, and includes this care being delivered in a trauma informed manner: (1) A two-way street: EIPS affected how participants experienced hospitalisation, and vice versa; (2) It’s about people: the quality and continuity of relationships participants had with staff, in hospital and at their EIPS, was central to their experience; (3) A gradual feeling of agency: participants viewed EIPS as both reducing involuntary care and supporting their self-management; and (4) Care coordination as navigation for the healthcare system: great when it works; frustrating when it breaks down. Conclusions Hospitalisation was viewed as a stressful and frequently traumatic event, but a approach to care founded on trust, transparency, and collaboration that is trauma-informed ameliorated this negative experience. Consistent EIPS care coordination was reported as essential in assisting YP and carers navigate the hospital system; conversely, discontinuity in EIPS staff and lack of integration of EIPS with hospital care undermined the positive impact of the EIPS care coordinator during hospitalisation. Care coordinator involvement as a facilitator, information provider, and collaborator in inpatient treatment decisions may improve the usefulness and meaningfulness of hospital interventions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0180.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.365 · 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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207