Intimate Relationships and Mental Illness : improving Mental Health Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate relationships, including romantic, marital, and sexual relationships, are a fundamental aspect of life and a right for everyone. However, despite their desire to take on social roles such as spouse, lover, or partner, persons with mental illness, such as schizophrenia, are less likely to develop such relationships. According to the International Classification of Functioning, which serves as the theoretical framework for this doctoral work, this situation reflects a significant participation restriction in the area of intimate relationships (World Health Organization, 2001). Although person-centered approaches, such as recovery-oriented and rights-based approaches, fully legitimize professional involvement in this domain, mental health practices remain insufficient or inadequate. Within this context, the INTIMate research program was developed to promote intimate relationships for persons living with mental illness by improving the support they receive. To achieve this goal, four studies were conducted. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify interventions aimed at promoting intimate relationships for persons with serious mental illness. The results revealed a lack of scientifically validated interventions, which may constitute a barrier to evidence-based support. To gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of participation restriction and the factors influencing it, a second study aimed to characterize the frequency and impact of barriers and facilitators of intimate relationships. This descriptive and comparative study was conducted among the general population and persons living with schizophrenia. The latter group perceives the impact of personal factors (particularly those related to self-concept), impairments (e.g., cognitive difficulties), and environmental factors (such as stigma) on their intimate relationships. Given that stigma was identified as a major barrier, this doctoral work subsequently focused on studying public stigma and self-stigma. A third study, using a mixed-method approach, identified stereotypes about the intimate relationships of persons living with schizophrenia among the general population, healthcare students, and professionals. It also highlighted potential pathways for reducing this stigma. Finally, a fourth study was conducted at the University of Montreal, in collaboration with patient partners, to develop and validate a scale assessing self-stigma in intimate relationships. In conclusion, this doctoral work presents promising perspectives for enhancing support in intimate relationships for persons living with mental illness. However, further studies are needed to promote evidence-based support that aligns with the preferences for those concerned. In accordance with national and international recommendations, this work advocates for holistic approaches aimed at achieving full social participation, such as recovery-oriented and rights-based approaches (Coldefy, 2022; WHO, 2021).
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".