MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408364931 · doi:10.1111/hex.70198

Co‐Authoring and Reporting on Lived Experience Engagement in Mental Health and/or Substance Research: A Qualitative Study and Guidance Document

2025· article· en· W4408364931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natasha Y. Sheikhan, Kerry Kuluski, Melissa Hiebert, Charlotte Munro, Vivien Cappe, Mary Rose van Kesteren, Sean A. Kidd, Lisa D. Hawke

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health CentreUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthFlexibility (engineering)PsychologyQualitative researchAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)Medical educationSubstance useApplied psychologyMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is a move towards engaging people with lived experience and families (PWLE/F)-also referred to as PWLE/F engagement-in mental health and/or substance use research. However, PWLE/F engagement is inadequately reported on in mental health and/or substance use research papers. OBJECTIVE: To understand what PWLE/F and researchers perceive are important components to report on related to engagement in mental health and/or substance use research. METHODS: This study included a qualitative description study underpinned by pragmatism. Data were collected through virtual interviews with 13 PWLE/F and 12 researchers across Canada and analysed using template analysis. The results were used to develop a reporting guidance document for engagement in mental health and/or substance use research. RESULTS: The results from the template analysis were structured through the following themes: (1) establishing the need for a guidance document; (2) aspects of engagement to report and reflect on; (3) guidance around co-authorship with PWLE/F; (4) practical tips for reporting on engagement and (5) considerations for journals. Participants identified a need for tailored guidance that is flexible and reflective, yet can promote transparency, accountability and learning in the field. A reporting guidance document was developed for engagement in mental health and/or substance use research that balances flexibility and standardisation while incorporating reflection into reporting. Guidance around co-authorship with PWLE/F partners was also included. CONCLUSION: The guidance document is intended to be used as a roadmap to help guide authors to meaningfully write about engagement without the rigid boundaries of a reporting guideline. We encourage research teams that engage PWLE/F in mental health and/or substance use research to consider using the guidance document as they write up their work. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: PWLE/F members were engaged throughout the study from conception to manuscript production. This included a PWLE partner on the doctoral committee and a Lived Experience Advisory Group consisting of two PWLE and one family partner.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
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 head0.733
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.067 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207