Meaningful Engagement: Exploring Principles and Actions to Build Client and Caregiver Engagement Within a Community‐Based Dual Diagnosis Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engagement of individuals with an intellectual disability and their caregivers in health care has been highlighted as an essential factor in developing services that better meet client needs; however, few studies have focused on the engagement of individuals with a dual diagnosis (intellectual disability co-occurring with a mental health illness and/or challenging behaviour) in health care. METHODS: This qualitative participatory action study engaged clients and their caregivers in exploring principles and actions that can be applied to build active and meaningful engagement within a specialised community-based mental health service for adults with a dual diagnosis. RESULTS: The four themes that emerged from the data-Collaboration, Communication, Empowering Environment, and Tailored Service-offered a way to conceptualise client and caregiver engagement. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the importance of building a culture of service delivery that values, encourages, and supports client and caregiver engagement. Practical strategies for increasing engagement are provided.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".