Our roles are not at ease: The work of engaging a youth advisory council in a mental health services delivery organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is growing policy impetus for including youth voices in health services research and health system reform. This article examines the perspectives of professionals in a mental healthcare organization charged with engaging young people as advisors in service transformation. METHODS: An institutional ethnography of a youth mental health services organization in Ontario, Canada, was conducted. Fieldwork consisted of twelve months of observation of meetings, interviews with youth advisors and adult service providers, with subsequent text analysis of engagement training and policy materials. The present article reports data from six adult professionals and related field observations. RESULTS: Service providers' efforts to engage youth were observed in three areas: a) supporting youth's development as advisors, b) retaining and deepening youth participation while waiting for organizational change and c) embedding relationships between youth and adults at various levels within the system of care. This work denotes existing tensions between the values and ideals of youth engagement and the everyday demands of services delivery. CONCLUSION: In this setting, a fundamental dimension of this work consisted of negotiating tensions between the policy enthusiasm for engagement and its realization in a health services context. In describing these contextual challenges, we outline implications for consideration by other youth mental health services. Engagement efforts that are authentic and sustained require resources and flexibility, and leadership commitment to instil service users' perspectives throughout multiple levels within the organization.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".