MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4301840293

Applying experience-based co-design with vulnerable populations: Lessons from a systematic review of methods to involve patients, families and service providers in child and youth mental health service improvement

2016· article· en· W4301840293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Mulvale, Ashleigh Miatello, Christina Hackett, Gillian Mulvale

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthService providerMental health serviceService (business)Service designPsychologyMedicineNursingPsychiatryBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to identify methods used to involve patients, family and service providers in child and youth mental health service improvement research. We analyzed the alignment of methods used with Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) methodology, and how power imbalances among participants were addressed. A systematic review of the English-language peer review literature since 2004 was carried out. The EMBASE, Scholar’s Portal, PubMed, Web of Science databases and the Ontario College of Art and Design University libraries were searched electronically for variations of ‘child’, ‘mental health’, ‘experience-based co-design’, ‘participatory research’ and ‘health care services’. Textual data was systematically extracted and analyzed. The electronic search identified 1468 articles; 13 remained following full text review and reference checking. Many participatory research studies in child and youth mental health were consistent with core elements of the EBCD methodology, but few focused on experiences and incorporated the perspectives of all participants throughout the research process. Story telling and visual media, employing youth as researcher partners, establishing equal status among participants, offering counseling support, paying particular attention to confidentiality, scheduling frequent breaks, and having skilled interviewers and facilitators were suggested methods to address power imbalances for this vulnerable population. Conclusion-The existing child and youth mental health participatory research literature aligns considerably with many elements of EBCD methodology and suggests diverse approaches to address power imbalances. More systematic application of the full range of elements will help to achieve patient centeredness and recovery in mental health and for other vulnerable populations.

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)0.414
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.493
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4140.493
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.017
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.066 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→