Healthy living? By whose standards? Engaging mental health service recipients to understand their perspectives of, and barriers to, healthy living.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is well recognized that mental health service recipients experience high rates of cardiometabolic disorders, have poorer diets, and exercise less than the general population. This study sought to explore the meaning of a healthy lifestyle for this population and the barriers they experience to healthy living. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with 23 individuals who experience serious mental health issues. The meaning of a healthy lifestyle and the barriers participants experience to living healthily were explored. RESULTS: Participants perceived a healthy lifestyle in broader terms than professional guidelines for exercise and diet. A broad framework including friendship, affordable safe housing, employment, spiritual, and emotional good health, as well as healthy eating and exercise, is described. Barriers identified by participants were poor mental and physical health and stigma (structural, social, and self). An unexpected result was the group problem solving that occurred during the focus groups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Health care professionals need to understand mental health service recipients' perspectives of a "healthy lifestyle." An understanding of barriers within this context is required, as only then will we be able to empathize and assist as health care professionals. This study also shows that realistic, innovative, and pragmatic solutions occur when mental health service recipients are empowered.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".