Partnering to enhance mental health care capacity in communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists care for and support people with lived experience of mental illness in their communities. We developed a program called More Than Meds to facilitate enhancing capacity of community pharmacists' roles in mental health care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study and used a directed content analysis with application of the Theoretical Domains Framework as part of our underlying theory of behaviour change and our analytic framework. RESULTS: Ten interviews (n = 6 pharmacists, n = 4 community members) were conducted with participants from the More Than Meds program. Three key themes were identified from the experiences of More Than Meds participants: networking and bridging, stigma, and expectations and permissions. The most frequently coded domains in the data from the Theoretical Domains Framework were social/professional role, skills, beliefs about capabilities, knowledge and environmental context and resources. CONCLUSIONS: The More than Meds Program enabled community pharmacists to increase their capabilities, opportunities and motivation in providing mental health care and support. Involving community pharmacists together with people with lived experience of mental illness was identified as an innovative component of the program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".