Review: involvement of former or current users of mental health services may improve outcomes in patients with severe mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simpson EL, House AO. Involving users in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services: systematic review. BMJ2002 ; 325 : 1265 –8 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Does the involvement of former or current users of mental health services in the delivery and evaluation of mental health services improve outcomes in patients with severe mental illness? Studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HealthSTAR, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, HMIC, and BIDS (all from 1966 to October 2001). Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed, and experts and relevant organisations were contacted for unpublished studies. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), or descriptive studies in which current or former users of mental health services with serious psychiatric illness (schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) participated in the design and data collection process of mental health service evaluation. Studies were also selected if users trained mental health professionals or if services were integrated by health professionals working together with users in a team. Data were extracted on the mechanism of involving users, including support available; … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.aulast%253DSimpson%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%2BL%26rft.volume%253D325%26rft.issue%253D7375%26rft.spage%253D1265%26rft.epage%253D1265%26rft.atitle%253DInvolving%2Busers%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bdelivery%2Band%2Bevaluation%2Bof%2Bmental%2Bhealth%2Bservices%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.325.7375.1265%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12458241%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=325/7375/1265&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F3%2F90.atom
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".