Concepts of social inclusion, exclusion and mental health: a review of the international literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary This is a review of 36 papers published in the peer reviewed literature on the subject of social inclusion, exclusion and mental health. Many of the reviewed papers offered only simplistic definitions of the concept. We identify the relationship between exclusion, inequality and injustice and question the application of the findings to current and future mental health policy. Abstract Social inclusion and exclusion are concepts which have been widely associated with politics and policy in the first decade of the 2000s. People with mental health problems have become the focus of a range of social inclusion initiatives. A literature review was conducted to explore the peer‐reviewed evidence relating social inclusion/exclusion and mental health. In total 36 papers were included in the review from the UK, Canada, Australia and Scandinavia. The papers had used a range of different approaches to research and evaluation. The included papers associated being socially included to: social roles and responsibilities such as employment, participation in social activities, environmental work and voting. Although some papers engaged in a critical discussion of the concept, many offered only simplistic accounts or definitions. Social inclusion is such a widely used term within political and policy discourses that it is surprising so little research is available within the mental health realm. There was a lack of clarity related to the concept of social exclusion and the qualitative studies focused entirely on the experiences of being excluded within an institutional or semi‐institutional setting. The relationship between exclusion, inequality and injustice is identified and the relevance of the concept to current and future mental health policy is questioned.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".