The Participation of Mental Health Service Users in Ontario, Canada: A Canadian Application of the Consumer Participation Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ontario mental health policy calls for the participation of service users in mental health organizations, but no studies have examined the extent to which this is occurring. AIMS: This study measures the extent to which service users participate in Ontario, Canada community mental health organizations and measures the attitudes toward service user participation in planning and in employment. METHODS: Members of the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addictions Programs were invited to participate in a modified form of the Consumer Participation Questionnaire, created by Kent and Read (1998) for New Zealand. RESULTS: Participation in Ontario community mental health organizations was present in this order: planning, membership on boards of directors, attendance at staff training, policy, staff hiring, and teaching at staff training. Compared with New Zealand, the prevalence of participation was higher in Ontario, but attitudes toward participation were similar. The role with the highest prevalence of participation, planning, was the same for both locations. CONCLUSIONS: An updated New Zealand study is called for, as is a more continuous method that includes various voices for measuring participation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".