Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper adds to the established importance of client-centred practice in mental health programs by reporting on the outcome of client interviews in one community setting in England. PURPOSE: The purpose of these interviews was to determine the opportunities for, and barriers to, the application of a definition of client-centred practice. METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to obtain 9 clients who participated in structured interviews. A combination of methods, including template analysis and the editing approach, were employed to determine themes and sub themes that are presented within the context of the clients'reasons for attending these programs. RESULTS: These themes included initiating client-centred practice with the sub themes of providing information to enable choice, participate in negotiating goals, overcoming fear and the severity of illness. Other themes related to the therapist's response to the client's illness and the client's knowledge about client-centred practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It was clear from these interviews that client-centred practice was important to this group of clients and there were both opportunities and barriers to be considered by therapists.
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 | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".