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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.637
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