Meanings of well-being from the perspectives of youth recently diagnosed with psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phenomenon of well-being has attracted a surge of attention in mental health policy, clinical practice and research internationally. Yet, the definitions of well-being remain elusive, and there is limited understanding on its meanings from the perspectives of youth mental health service users. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the meanings of well-being from the perspectives of youth mental health service users diagnosed with psychosis in the past 3 years. METHODS: Using a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews and participant-photography elicited focus groups with 17 youth recruited from an early intervention program for psychoses and a mental health program specializing in the delivery of psychiatric services to street youth. Analysis combined the methods of constructivist grounded theory and narrative inquiry. FINDINGS: The findings illustrate five key themes in participants' conceptualizations of well-being: multidimensionality; active oriented states; social environment; identity; and normality. Dimensions of well-being identified in participants' accounts include: psychological, physical, emotional, moral/virtuous, financial/material, spiritual, and social aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Our heuristic framework for conceptualizing well-being, grounded in the narrative accounts of youth participants, can inform the future planning and design of interventions, research, and outcome measures pertaining to the well-being of youth recently diagnosed with psychosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".