Client Experiences With a Short-Term Case Management Mental Health Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short Term Case Management (STCM) was introduced in 2016 in Toronto, Ontario, as a brief intervention to address long wait-lists for case management services. STCM provides individuals with mental illness, living in the community, case management services on a weekly basis over 3 months to identify personal goals and work toward an improved state of health and well-being. Despite the small but growing body of evidence on short-term case management, there is limited research on clients' reported experiences of these services. This study used a phenomenological approach to answer the question "What are the experiences with services of individuals who received short-term case management services?" Eight qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted between November 2019 and January 2020 to collect the perspectives and experiences of clients who had received STCM. Most participants valued engaging in a brief therapeutic relationship. Additionally, participants described that the intervention helped them connect with other agencies for ongoing support and begin achieving their own long-term goals. Some participants voiced concerns about the brief duration of the intervention. Future research should explore the role of briefcase management in the continuum of services and the typology of clients who may benefit from longer therapeutic relationship to achieve their goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".