“Everyone Has a Role”: Perspectives of Service Users With First-Episode Psychosis, Family Caregivers, Treatment Providers, and Policymakers on Responsibility for Supporting Individuals With Mental Health Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Varying perceptions of who should be responsible for supporting individuals with mental health problems may contribute to their needs remaining unmet. A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore these perceptions among key stakeholders. Focus groups were conducted with 13 service users, 12 family members, and 18 treatment providers from an early psychosis intervention program in Montreal, Canada. Individual interviews were conducted with six mental health policy-/decision-makers. Participants across stakeholder groups assigned a range of responsibilities to individuals with mental health problems, stakeholders in these individuals' immediate and extended social networks (e.g., families), macro-level stakeholders with influence (e.g., government), and society as a whole. Perceived failings of the health care system and the need for greater sharing of roles and responsibilities also emerged as important themes. Our findings suggest that different stakeholders should collectively assume certain responsibilities and that systems-level failings may contribute to unmet needs for mental health support.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".