Systematic review of the role of service users as researchers in mental health studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Service user involvement in mental health service development and research is becoming more common in countries like the UK, USA and Canada. This systematic review of the international scientific literature has been carried out to assess the stage of development of mental health service users involvement in research. METHOD: Systematic review of any research project actively involving service users in any part of the research process. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Nine studies used quantitative techniques, 24 used qualitative techniques and two studies used both quantitative and qualitative techniques. While three studies were user-led, in three other studies the users were simply consulted but did not have any active role in the research. The remaining 29 studies were based on a collaboration between service users and professional researchers. CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of mental health service users in the research process is feasible both in quantitative and qualitative research studies. The involvement of service users in research has a number of benefits; such research requires more accurate planning and more time than the traditional research.
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 | 0.031 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".