Designing a library of lived experience for mental health (LoLEM): protocol for integrating a realist synthesis and experience based codesign approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with lived expertise in managing mental health challenges can be an important source of knowledge and support for other people facing similar challenges, and for carers to learn how best to help. However, opportunities for sharing lived expertise are limited. Living libraries support people with lived expertise to be 'living books', sharing their experiences in dialogue with 'readers' who can ask questions. Living libraries have been piloted worldwide in health-related contexts but without a clear model of how they work or rigorous evaluation of their impacts. We aim to develop a programme theory about how a living library could be used to improve mental health outcomes, using this theory to codesign an implementation guide that can be evaluated across different contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a novel integration of realist synthesis and experience-based codesign (EBCD) to produce a programme theory about how living libraries work and a theory and experience informed guide to establishing a library of lived experience for mental health (LoLEM). Two workstreams will run concurrently: (1) a realist synthesis of literature on living libraries, combined with stakeholder interviews, will produce several programme theories; theories will be developed collaboratively with an expert advisory group of stakeholders who have hosted or taken part in a living library and will form our initial analysis framework; a systematic search will identify literature about living libraries; data will be coded into our analysis framework, and we will use retroductive reasoning to explain living libraries' impacts across multiple contexts. Individual stakeholder interviews will help refine and test theories; (2) data from workstream 1 will inform 10 EBCD workshops with people with experience of managing mental health difficulties and health professionals to produce a LoLEM implementation guide; data from this process will also inform the theory in workstream 1. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Coventry and Warwick National Health Service Research Ethics Committee on 29 December 2021 (reference number 305975). The programme theory and implementation guide will be published as open access and shared widely through a knowledge exchange event, a study website, mental health provider and peer support networks, peer reviewed journals and a funders report. PROSPERO REGISTRATION DETAILS: CRD42022312789.
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 | 0.138 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.014 |
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".