MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109567089 · doi:10.1177/1363459314567790

Photovoice in mental illness research: A review and recommendations

2015· review· en· W2109567089 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMovember CanadaMovember Foundation
KeywordsPhotovoiceMental illnessParticipant observationRespite carePhoto elicitationMental healthFocus groupQualitative researchContext (archaeology)PsychologyStigma (botany)NarrativeFeelingNursingSocial psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatrySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few decades, photovoice research has gained prominence, providing context rich insights through participants' photographs and narratives. Emergent within the field of photovoice research have been health studies embracing diverse illness issues. The goal of this scoping review article was to describe the use of photovoice in mental illness, paying particular attention to the following: (1) the study design and methods, (2) empirical findings, and (3) dissemination strategies. Nine qualitative studies (seven drawing from primary and two secondary analyses) featuring diverse approaches to analysis of data comprising individual and/or focus group interviews using participant-produced photographs were included in the review. Described were participant's experiences of living with mental illness and/or substance overuse, including feelings of loneliness and being marginalized, along with their support care needs (e.g. physical, emotional, and spiritual) to garner self-confidence, respite, and/or recovery. Empirically, the reviewed articles confirmed the value of participant-produced photographs for obtaining in-depth understandings about individual's mental illness experiences while a focus on stigma and recovery was prominent. In terms of dissemination, while most of the published articles shared some participants' photographs and narratives, less evident were strategies to actively engage the public or policymakers with the images. Recommendations for future photovoice research include conducting formal analyses of participant photographs and strategically lobbying policymakers and raising public awareness through virtual and "in person" photo exhibitions while de-stigmatizing and affirming the experiences of those who are challenged by mental illness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.853
GPT teacher head0.774
Teacher spread0.079 · 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