Co-designing action-oriented mental health conversations between care providers and ageing Canadians in the community: a participatory mixed-methods study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The mental health of ageing Canadians is a growing concern, particularly post-pandemic. Older adults face systemic ageism and mental health stigma as pervasive barriers to seeking needed mental health support, care and treatment within health and social care systems. These barriers are exacerbated when service providers focus on physical healthcare needs or lack the skills and confidence to talk about and/or address mental health during routine visits. This study aims to co-design and test an evidence-based approach to mental health conversations at the point-of-care in home and community settings with older adults, family and friend caregivers and health and social care providers that could facilitate help-seeking activities and care access. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A participatory mixed-methods study design will be applied, guided by a Working Group of experts-by-experience (n=30). Phase 1 engages ageing Canadians in four online workshops (n=60) and a national survey (n=1000) to adapt an evidence-based visual model of mental health for use with older adults in home and community care. Phase 2 includes six co-design workshops with community providers (n=90) in rural and urban sites across three Canadian provinces to co-design tools, resources and processes for enabling the use of the adapted model as a conversation guide. Phase 3 involves pilot and feasibility testing the co-designed conversations with older adult clients of providers from Phase 2 (n=180). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Phases 1 and 2 of this study have received ethics clearance at the University of Waterloo (ORE #44187), University of British Columbia (#H22-02306) and St. Francis Xavier University (#26075). While an overview of Phase 3 is included, details will rely on Phase 2 outcomes. Knowledge mobilisation activities will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, webinars, newsletters, infographics and policy briefs. Interested audiences may include community organisations, policy and decision-makers and health and social care providers.
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 | 0.110 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
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".