MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390942654 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic23690

Bridging the gap between the conceptual and the practical – reflections on the opportunities and challenges of meaningful engagement of people with lived experience in the context of integrated community care.

2023· article· en· W4390942654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tinne Vandensande, Jack C. Fisher, Nieves Ehrenberg, Sofie Stoop, Martine Vallarino, D. Levesque, Bronwyn Lawrence, Frederik Desodt, Niels Papegaey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthContext (archaeology)Public relationsCLARITYCommunity engagementPremiseCitizen journalismSociologyHealth carePsychologyNursingMedicinePolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Participants will explore the opportunities and challenges of meaningful engagement of people with lived experience in the context of integrated community care (ICC), through a dialogue with up to three innovative ICC practices whose central premise is the co-production of wellbeing. The dialogue will be further nourished through consideration of the recently co-developed World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework for Meaningful Engagement of People with Lived Experience of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Mental Health and Neurological conditions. Context: There is ample evidence that integrated care is best suited to support those living with long-term chronic NCDs, mental health conditions and to those with medically complex needs. At the very core of ICC, lies the principle of co-developing health and wellbeing. Despite broad agreement around the benefits, there is a lack of clarity on how this is achieved and few examples of what this looks like in practice. The WHO is currently in the process of co-developing a Framework for Meaningful Engagement of People Living with NCDs, Mental Health and Neurological conditions. Complementing this is practical guidance being produced by the Transnational Forum for ICC (TransForm) based on a collection of experiences and reflections of innovative ICC practices around Europe and Canada on the meaningful engagement of people with lived experience. Key learning: The Framework will contribute to the advancement of understanding, knowledge and action on meaningful engagement and other related participatory approaches. The evidence base has been and will continue to driven by individuals with lived experience. The TransForm guidance on engaging people with lived experience will further help bridge the gap between the conceptual and the practical. Audience: All those seeking to better engage and co-produce services with people with lived experience but are not sure how to start and what this looks like in practice. Plan: 10 mins – Setting the scene Joint presentation (WHO/TransForm) 15 mins – Overview of three TransForm changemakers Brief presentations on each ICC practice, focusing on how they engage people with lived experience. 20 mins – Participants dialogue with the TransForm changemakers Participants will choose one of the three Changemakers to discuss opportunities and challenges of meaningful engagement of people with lived experience 5 mins – Summary feedback from each table Each group reports back the main opportunities and challenges identified through discussion 10 mins – Opportunities and challenges in the context of the WHO framework Jack Fisher will close the session tying back the opportunities and challenges to the WHO Framework How are you going to engage with the audience? Each group would have one Changemaker and one facilitator to ensure conversation centres around the question of: How can the WHO Framework and TransForm’s legacy support your practice? How are you going to summarize the take home messages? There will be short feedback from each table on main points discussed – the facilitation team will then write up the discussions into a short and accessible summary which will be shared through social media and integrated care networks.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.068
Scholarly communication0.0220.024
Open science0.0050.044
Research integrity0.0130.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.612
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207