Mental health consumers and providers dialogue in an institutional setting: A participatory approach to promoting recovery-oriented care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This brief report presents the preliminary findings of a participatory project, to answer a question raised by stakeholders in mental health services: How can providers and patients create a process for knowledge exchange to support recovery-oriented care? METHOD: Participatory action research (PAR) and narrative phenomenological methodology guided the selection of methods, which consisted of an iterative process between telling stories and dialoguing about personal values related to recovery. The sample consisted of three occupational therapists, a psychiatrist, an academic-clinician, and five consumers of mental health services who were involved in each stage of the research, including design, interpretation, dissemination, and implementation. RESULTS: Significant interpersonal and intrapersonal tensions were named, and conditions for a more sustainable process of knowledge exchange were explored. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The project revealed both the challenges with situating research within an institution (hierarchy of knowledge, power, and vulnerability) and face-to-face dialogue, as well as positive changes in professional attitudes and consumer empowerment, as providers and patients came to understand what was at stake for each other. The project underscored the need for provider-consumer dialogue as a process to explore tensions and values in promoting recovery-oriented care.
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 | 0.062 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".