MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395012823 · doi:10.1177/00332941241248595

Support Groups Versus Primary Mental Healthcare on Disability and Continuity of Care: Community Trial [Support Groups for Recovery]

2024· article· en· W4395012823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Felipe Agudelo‐Hernández, Ana Giraldo Alvarez, Rodrigo Rojas‐Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMental healthRepeated measures designPsychologyDescriptive statisticsClinical psychologyPsychological interventionAnalysis of varianceMedicineGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the need to implement strategies to reduce recovery gaps in mental health with the community as axes of recovery, the objective of the present study was to assess the impact on psychosocial disability and care continuity in individuals with suicidal behavior, of the clinical and community components of the Mental Health Gap Action Program (mhGAP), versus exclusive psychiatric care. For this, a controlled community trial carried out in 2023 was conducted, comprising intervention groups: Support Group (SG), mhGAP Group (mhGAPG) and a Control Group (CG). Self-report measurements were collected pretest and posttest, utilizing the Psychosocial Disability Scale and the Alberta Continuity of Care Scale. The study involved the participation of 94 individuals with a history of suicidal behavior, with 30 individuals in the SG, 34 in the mhGAP group, and 30 in the CG. Categorical variables were summarized using frequency distribution tables. Descriptive statistics were used to examine participants' characteristics at the study outcome and estimate treatment compliance. The Mann-Whitney U Test examined differences in sociodemographic variable frequencies. The Jarque-Bera test confirmed a normal distribution for psychological variables, warranting the use of parametric tests. Differences in mean values across groups, each with two measurements per individual, were assessed using a type II repeated measures ANOVA. There were significant differences based on the intervention, with the effect being greater in the SG across all domains. Significant improvement was observed in all domains of the disability and continuity of care scale within the intervention groups. Both groups showed improvement, with better results for the SG. In conclusion, a methodology is proposed for implementing support groups based on core components, which effectively enhances psychosocial disability and the continuity of mental health care, especially in suicidal behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207