MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086828977 · doi:10.1002/jcop.20171

A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives: Part V–Outcomes at 3‐year follow‐up

2007· article· en· W2086828977 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey Nelson, Joanna Ochocka, Rich Janzen, John Trainor, Paula Goering, Jonathan Lomotey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthDistressPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Mental illnessCommunity integrationPeer supportLongitudinal studyClinical psychologyPsychiatryGerontologyMedicinePhysical therapyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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a 36‐month period (n = 25); (b) those who had been active in CSIs at 9‐ and 18‐month follow‐up periods, but who were no longer active at 36 months (n = 35); and (c) a comparison group of participants who were never active in CSIs (n = 42).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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.459
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.098 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community PsychologySame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207