313 Shared decision-making with patients in forensic mental health settings: a knowledge synthesis and research priority setting study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Shared decision making (SDM) has demonstrated significant improvements in outcomes for marginalized populations. While it has been widely implemented in other healthcare areas, its application in forensic mental health settings is still in its early stages. The objective of this project is threefold: 1) examining the research progress of SDM with patients in forensic mental health settings through a scoping review; 2) identifying and analyzing relevant policies through an environmental scan; 3) setting future research priorities through a mixed methods study with patient representatives and stakeholders. Methods Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, we will conduct a scoping review and an environmental scan concurrently following the Joanna Briggs Institute and Légaré’s methodologies respectively. Afterwards, we will proceed with an exploratory research priority-setting study using the adapted James Lind Alliance method. Guided by the patient service user engagement in research framework and the IAP2 spectrum of public participation, we will employ an Integrated Knowledge Translation approach (IKT) for this project. The project principal investigators will work closely with knowledge users throughout the project preparation, execution, and translational phases. An Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion lens will be embedded in our research to ensure fair opportunities for patient partners to participate in our research and benefit from its outcomes. We will conduct a pre- and post- project survey to examine knowledge user experiences with the IKT approach. Discussion Individuals in forensic mental health system, like all other individuals, have a right to be active participants in their healthcare decisions. Respecting and facilitating their participation in decision making is a crucial part of ethical healthcare provision. This project will be instrumental in informing and shaping future research, practice, and policy aimed at improving patient engagement in forensic mental health settings. Funding support CIHR Operating Grant (#503654)
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 | 0.126 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.014 |
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".