MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382181895 · doi:10.1111/hex.13798

Meaningful engagement through critical reflexivity: Engaging people with lived experience in continuing mental health professional development

2023· article· en· W4382181895 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Harris, Chantalle Clarkin, Jordana Rovet, Allison Crawford, Andrew Johnson, Anne Kirvan, Sam Gruszecki, Stephanie Wang, Sophie Soklaridis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityMental healthLived experiencePsychologyMedical educationMedicineSociologyPsychotherapistSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engaging people with lived experience of mental health system encounters in the design and actualization of continuing professional development initiatives for mental health professionals can have transformative systemic impacts. Yet, despite evidence that involving people with lived experience benefits mental health professional education, far less focus has been placed on how to engage people with lived experience in continuing professional development initiatives. Tensions persist regarding the role of lived experience perspectives in continuing professional development, as well as how to establish people with lived experience as partners, educators and leaders in a thoughtful way. We propose that meaningful and equitable partnerships with people with lived experience can be realized by engaging in critical reflexivity and by systematically challenging assumptions. This paper explores three topics: (1) the current state of engagement with people with lived experience in continuing professional development initiatives; (2) barriers to meaningful engagement and (3) recommendations for using critical reflexivity to support the involvement and leadership of people with lived experience in continuing professional development for mental health professionals. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: This viewpoint manuscript was co-designed and co-written by people with diverse lived and learned experiences. Each author's professional roles involve meaningfully and equitably partnering with and centring the perspectives of those with lived experience of mental health system encounters. In addition, approximately half of the authorship team identifies as having lived experience of accessing the psychiatric system and/or supporting family members who are navigating challenges related to mental health. These lived and learned experiences informed the conception and writing of this article.

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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.058
Scholarly communication0.0260.023
Open science0.0040.033
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.423
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207