A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives: Part 3—A qualitative study of impacts of participation on new members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the outcomes of participation in mental health Consumer/Survivor Initiatives (CSIs) and identifies helpful qualities of CSIs through a longitudinal, qualitative study that involved in-depth interviews of people who experienced severe mental health challenges in Ontario, Canada. We used a nonequivalent control group design in which we compared active participants in CSIs ( n = 15) with nonactive participants ( n = 12) at baseline and at 9- and 18-month follow-up intervals. Compared with non-CSI participants, CSI participants reported more stable mental health, enhanced social support, sustained work, stable income, and participation in education and training at 9- and 18-month interviews. The helpful qualities of CSIs that participants reported were (1) safe environments that provide a positive, welcoming place to go; (2) social arenas that provide opportunities to meet and talk with peers; (3) an alternative worldview that provides opportunities for members to participate and contribute; and (4) effective facilitators of community integration that provide opportunities to connect members to the community at large. The findings are discussed in terms of previous research in self-help and consumer-run organizations in mental health. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".