Lived Experience and Family Engagement in Mental Health and Substance use Health Research: Case Profiles of Five Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with lived and living experience (PWLLE) and family members (F) can engage in mental health and substance use health research beyond participant roles, as advisors, co-researchers, equal partners and research leads. However, implementing meaningful and effective engagement is complex. METHODS: This article profiles five research initiatives involving different lived experience engagement structures, situated in a single tertiary care teaching and research hospital. RESULTS: The profiled projects feature various study designs and stages, ranging from initial priority setting to implementation efforts. The levels of engagement range from consultation to PWLLE/F leadership. Across diverse populations, all embody high-quality engagement and illustrate that PWLLE/F can have an important impact on a wide range of mental health and substance use health research. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement can be implemented flexibly within a single research institution to meet a wide range of needs and preferences of researchers and PWLLE/F. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Each of the research initiatives profiled was conducted with substantial lived experience engagement, as described herein. People with lived and living experience from each research initiative are also included in the authorship team and contributed to this manuscript.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".