A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives: Part 2—A quantitative study of impacts of participation on new members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the impacts of participation in mental health Consumer/Survivor Initiatives (CSIs), we used a nonequivalent control group design to compare new, active participants in CSIs ( n = 61) with nonactive participants ( n = 57) at baseline, 9-month, and 18-month follow-up intervals. The two groups were comparable at baseline on a wide range of demographic variables, self-reported psychiatric diagnosis, service use, and outcome measures. At 9 months, there was a significant reduction in utilization of emergency room services for active participants, but not for nonactive participants. At 18 months, the active participants showed significant improvement in social support and quality of life (daily activities) and a significant reduction in days of psychiatric hospitalization, whereas the nonactive participants did not show significant changes on these outcomes. Also, active CSI participants were significantly more likely to maintain their involvement in employment (paid or volunteer) and/or education over the 18-month follow-up period when compared with those who were not active in CSIs. These results are discussed in the context of the self-help literature and their policy implications for people with mental illness. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".