Preferred Terms for Users of Mental Health Services Among Service Providers and Recipients
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The terms used to refer to recipients of psychiatric services continue to be controversial. Terms in current use include "patient," "client," "consumer," and "survivor." In this study mental health service recipients and providers were surveyed about their preferences among these terms, and responses were analyzed to identify factors associated with various preferences. METHODS: A total of 550 service providers and 427 recipients at four sites in Ontario-two provincial psychiatric hospitals, a private mental health center, and a psychiatric unit of a general hospital-participated in a brief anonymous survey. RESULTS: Among service providers, 68.4 percent preferred the term "patient," 26.5 percent preferred "client," and.5 percent preferred "consumer." Logistic regression analysis showed that service providers' preferences were associated with age and gender. Among service recipients, 54.8 percent preferred the term "patient," 28.8 percent preferred "client," 7 percent preferred "survivor," and 2.8 percent preferred "consumer." Service recipients' preferences were associated with site, self-reported diagnosis, and employment status. CONCLUSION: The study results indicate lack of universality in preferences for terms for users of mental health services and suggest the need for dialogue about preferred terms between service providers and recipients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it