[A literature review on perception of the providers and clients regarding the use of the client centered approach in psychiatry].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article presents a literature review based on the following question: According to service providers and clients, is the approach adopted by service providers in psychiatry, centred on client needs? PURPOSE: To compare the perceptions of clients and service providers regarding the use of a client-centred approach and the identification of the intervention needs in psychiatry. METHODS: Medline, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases were consulted; eight studies were selected. RESULTS: Service providers and clients agree to the fact that the client-centred approach is not priorized in psychiatry. Different reasons are given by both parties. There is little agreement between clients and service providers regarding the intervention needs. Many clients needs seem to be unsatisfied (interpersonal relationships, independent life skills, productive activities, coping with illness, health care). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists must adopt a client-centred approach to their interventions by evaluating the global needs of the clients, by developing services to encourage clients to engage in social or productive activities and by consulting the clients and their families in order to evaluate the quality of the services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".