“It just felt like a rubber stamp”: Family experiences of mental health review board hearings in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involving families in the planning and delivery of care to relatives living with a mental health disorder is beneficial to achieve optimal recovery and medication adherence, and to reduce decompensation and hospital readmission rates. However, in the specific context of forensic mental health, the involvement of families in the planning and dispensation of care to relatives has been difficult. The purpose of our study, which was conducted in Ontario, Canada, was to better understand the interactions between families and the forensic mental health system. To meet this objective, we used a qualitative methodology, namely interpretive phenomenology. We collected data from 17 family members of persons in the forensic mental health system through semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using a three-pronged approach with a particular attention paid to the spatial, temporal, and interpersonal dimensions of families' lived experiences. In this article, we present our findings related to families' experiences with the Review Board, a mental health tribunal responsible for the legal management of patients in the forensic mental health system. We regrouped the experiences of family members in four overarching, and occasionally overlapping, categories: (1) Preparation for Review Board hearings; (2) Review Board hearing processes; (3) Information Discussed during Review Board hearings; and (4) Format of Review Board hearings. Among other things, our findings highlight that Review Boards are experienced by families as rubber-stamping exercises, and that Review Board panels lack sociodemographic diversity. These findings have implications for healthcare professionals and mental health tribunals in Canada and abroad.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".