MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317895766 · doi:10.1370/afm.21.s1.3724

Assertive Community Treatment Team Members’ Mental Models toward Primary Care

2023· article· en· W4317895766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Agnes Grudniewicz, Rachel Thelen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertive community treatmentThematic analysisMental healthContext (archaeology)NursingCollaborative CarePsychologyMedicineQualitative researchMental illnessPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: People with serious mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) have inequitable access to primary care, which is associated with avoidable morbidity and mortality. Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) is an evidence-based model that provides intensive mental and social health support. ACT’s engagement with primary care (both in providing primary care services or collaborating with external primary care providers) is not well understood. Objective: To discover ACT team members’ mental models (i.e., psychological representations) of the provision of primary care (within the team and through collaboration with external primary care providers), and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on these mental models. Study Design and Analysis: An exploratory multiple qualitative case study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Shared Mental Model theory framed analysis. Setting or Dataset: Ontario, Canada. Population Studied: Interdisciplinary ACT team members. Results: Twenty-seven participants from 5 ACT teams in one region were interviewed, including administrators, social workers, psychiatrists, mental health workers/counsellors, occupational therapists, nurses, and a recreational therapist. ACT team members perceived that primary care was important for their clients. Some teams offered a limited set of medical primary care services to meet clients’ needs. Most participants did not think that ACT team mandates should expand to include primary care. They should instead support collaboration with clients’ external primary care providers, as this enables client integration into the wider community. To liaise with external providers, ACT team members reported that they must navigate barriers at multiple levels (i.e., client, provider, and system levels). Most participants believed the COVID-19 pandemic delayed client access to primary care, demanded more time and risk exposure from ACT to support care, and shifted to virtual care without considering all clients’ needs. Some teams reported an increase in internal primary care provision during the pandemic. This was associated with burnout and reinforced the importance of external primary care provision. Conclusions: Findings provide insight into the different ways primary care can be delivered to ACT clients, which could provide important lessons for ACT teams in North America.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.478
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.006 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→