MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376127331 · doi:10.1186/s40900-023-00442-5

Research evidence and implementation gaps in the engagement of people with lived experience in mental health and substance use research: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4376127331 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisRelevance (law)PsychologyWork engagementPublic engagementEvidence-based practiceApplied psychologyMedical educationQualitative researchWork (physics)Public relationsMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineSocial sciencePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition that engaging people with lived experience (PWLE) in mental health and substance use research improves the quality of the research in terms of relevance to the population and the feasibility of the work. Engagement also provides positive opportunities for research teams and the PWLE engaged. However, there are many gaps in the research on PWLE engagement. This scoping review synthesizes the gaps in the implementation of PWLE engagement and in the research on engagement as presented by research teams engaging PWLE in their work. METHOD: A systematic electronic database search was conducted in 2022 for published articles on PWLE engagement in mental health and substance use research. Potential articles were screened for relevance. The search led to 49 final articles included in the review. The 49 articles were then coded using codebook thematic analysis to answer two research questions: (1) What are the research evidence gaps regarding the engagement of PWLE in mental health and substance use research?; and (2) What are the gaps in implementing PWLE engagement in mental health and substance use research? PWLE were engaged in the conduct of this review. RESULTS: Results showed that research evidence gaps include further work on conceptualizing engagement; developing resources, tools, and practice recommendations to support research teams; increasing diversity in evaluations of engagement; and evaluating engagement, including its impact on the research, on PWLE, and on researchers. Implementation gaps included several broader institutional gaps and gaps in the day-to-day practice of engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in PWLE engagement in mental health and substance use research in recent years, research evidence and implementation gaps remain. Research teams are encouraged to consider these gaps and conduct research and implementation activities to address them in a rigorous manner.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.930
GPT teacher head0.696
Teacher spread0.234 · 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