Experiences of discrimination among people Using mental health services in England 2008-2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that levels of discrimination against people using mental health services are high; however, reports of these people's experiences are rare. AIMS: To determine whether the Time to Change (TTC) programme target of 5% reduction in discrimination has been achieved. METHOD: Separate samples of people using mental health services were interviewed annually from 2008 to 2011 using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale to record instances of discrimination. RESULTS: Ninety-one per cent of participants reported one or more experiences of discrimination in 2008 compared with 88% in 2011 (z = -1.9, P = 0.05). The median negative discrimination score was 40% in 2008 and 28% in 2011 (Kruskal-Wallis χ(2) = 83.4, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of participants experiencing no discrimination increased significantly over the course of TTC but by less than the initial target. The overall median discrimination score fell by 11.5%. Data from 2010 and 2011 suggest that these gains may be hard to maintain during economic austerity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".