Perspectives on the implementation and collaborative facilitation of an intervention to engage young adults in psychiatric rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increasing service user involvement and collaboration with providers has become an important facet of the recovery movement. This study explored perspectives on the implementation and delivery of an intervention (Just Do You [JDY]) designed to improve treatment engagement among marginalized young adults diagnosed with serious mental illnesses. METHOD: = 11) with nine participants that included agency leaders, clinical providers, and researchers involved with the planning, delivery, and evaluation of JDY. We used grounded theory coding techniques and constant comparison to develop themes that capture the data on implementation and collaboration related to the delivery of JDY. RESULTS: organizations, clustering around several CFIR domains (e.g., inner setting, process, characteristics of individuals, intervention characteristics). Findings speak to the importance of a "culture of collaboration" in which collaboration is occurring across multiple levels of an organization to support the delivery and implementation of JDY. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: JDY can complement other collaborative approaches given its focus on improving initial engagement. Findings point to the perceived benefits of interventions that are facilitated by a clinician and a person with lived experience along with how their combined expertise can support recovery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".