MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089861063 · doi:10.1007/s40271-020-00444-5

Shared Decision Making in a Youth Mental Health Service Design and Research Project: Insights From the Pan-Canadian ACCESS Open Minds Network

2020· article· en· W3089861063 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chloé Guinaudie, Chantelle Mireault, Jimmy Tan, Yvonne Pelling, Sara Jalali, Ashok Malla, Srividya N. Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthPublic relationsService providerHealth careExperiential knowledgePsychologyService (business)Medical educationNursingKnowledge managementBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceMarketingComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shared decision making (SDM) is the process by which health care providers and patients collaborate to make health care decisions. This collaboration leads to informed decision making and improved outcomes. However, research on SDM specific to the field of youth mental health is scarce. ACCESS Open Minds (ACCESS OM) is a youth mental health research and evaluation project that implemented and evaluated SDM practices within its various activities and operations. The ACCESS OM network spans a diversity of youth mental health settings across Canada, and includes various stakeholders such as youth, family members and carers, clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. The project values all types of knowledge (specifically, experiential, cultural, clinical, and scientific knowledge) as necessary to lead to better health research, care delivery, and outcomes for patients and their communities. Similarly, it acknowledges the lived experience of patients and, family and carers as expertise. Through the integration of SDM practices, ACCESS OM has formulated valuable insights that can be applied to other health problems and settings. This paper, written by youth and family council members, operational staff, and researchers from the project, will share challenges and solutions that arose in the integration of SDM practices within ACCESS OM’s knowledge translation strategy, governance structures, clinical contexts, and capacity-building initiatives. This paper describes how ACCESS Open Minds (ACCESS OM) uses shared decision making (SDM) strategies. ACCESS OM is a pan-Canadian youth mental health project, which is improving youth mental health services across Canada. Often, health care systems are not set up to prioritize patients’ expertise when it comes to decisions about care and services. SDM means that patients, service providers, and other relevant individuals collaborate to make decisions about health care. SDM strategies are important in how ACCESS OM is working to improve youth mental health services. This paper provides examples of how the ACCESS OM project has implemented SDM processes, and discusses challenges encountered in this regard, with the aim of helping other projects and organizations implement SDM strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0520.039
Scholarly communication0.0210.008
Open science0.0070.018
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.637
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatientSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207