Participatory Research with Persons who Experience Mental Illness in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Persons who experience mental illness also face stigma and discrimination that frequently lead to a loss of ability to exercise autonomy and agency in their lives. Purpose. The range and breadth of literature exploring participatory research with persons living with mental illness are unknown in occupational therapy and occupation science. We initiated this study to fill this gap in the existing occupational therapy and occupational science literature. Method. Using the method of Arksey and O’Malley, we have conducted a scoping review to identify the range and breadth of literature. A qualitative content analysis was performed. Findings. A total of 34 articles were included in the narrative synthesis. The content analysis led to three related themes from the included studies: (1) coming together ; (2) unique potential of participatory research ; and (3) challenges in conducting participatory research . Conclusions. This review highlights that participatory research is well suited to research conducted with persons living with mental illness to support meaningful engagement and minimize stigma throughout the research process. This review can guide future participatory research and practice in occupational therapy and occupational science with persons living with mental illness.
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 | 0.036 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".