A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives: Part V–Outcomes at 3‐year follow‐up
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the impacts of participation in mental health Consumer/Survivor Initiatives (CSIs), organizations run by and for people with mental illness. A nonequivalent comparison group design was used to compare three groups of participants: (a) those who were continually active in CSIs over a 36‐month period (n = 25); (b) those who had been active in CSIs at 9‐ and 18‐month follow‐up periods, but who were no longer active at 36 months (n = 35); and (c) a comparison group of participants who were never active in CSIs (n = 42). Data were gathered at baseline, 9‐, 18‐, and 36‐month follow‐ups. The three groups were comparable at baseline on a wide range of demographic variables, self‐reported psychiatric diagnosis, service use, and outcome measures. At 36 months, the continually active participants scored significantly higher than the other two groups of participants on community integration, quality of life (daily living activities), and instrumental role involvement, and significantly lower on symptom distress. No differences between the groups were found on other outcome measures. Improvements in 36‐month outcomes for people with mental illness who participated in CSIs suggest the potential value of these peer support organizations. Further research is needed to determine the replicability of these positive findings. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comm Psychol 35: 655–665, 2007.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it