MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954533144 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001013

An Integrative Review of the Barriers to Job Acquisition for People With Severe Mental Illnesses

2019· review· en· W2954533144 on OpenAlexaff
Élyse Charette-Dussault, Marc Corbière

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupported employmentStigma (botany)PsychologyMental illnessInclusion (mineral)PerceptionWork (physics)Social supportMental healthSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This integrative review analyses and synthesizes specialized literature of 20 years up to 2017 studying barriers/obstacles to employment for people with severe mental illnesses. The inclusion and exclusion criteria led to 35 experimental and nonexperimental studies. Results of the prospective studies were analyzed with the evidence synthesis method to isolate the most salient obstacles. Six main themes emerged from the findings, grouped into personal and environmental barriers. Environmental barriers were related to disability benefits and other physical resources, to stigma and social support, and to vocational services. Individual barriers included those related to illness, to work experience and skills, and to self-perception, fears, and motivation. The most prominent obstacles are lack of work experience and lack of use of effective strategies toward employment. Systematically identifying barriers to employment for people with severe mental illnesses will enable employment specialists to better support their clients in overcoming them, thus facilitating their work integration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207