MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413366202 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24109

Lessons Learned from Engaging People with Lived Experience in Co-Designing a Community Mental Health Clinic

2025· article· en· W4413366202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Jane Brubacher, Katie McDonald, Kobisha Rajeswaran, Warren Dodd

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthIntegrated careMedical educationPsychologyMental healthcareNursingMedicineHealth carePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study is anchored by a practitioner-researcher partnership between Region of Waterloo Public Health and Paramedic Services (ROWPHP) and the School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo. ROWPHP is facilitating a collaborative process to co-design an Alternate Destination Clinic (ADC) for Waterloo Region, Ontario. In the ADC model, paramedic services would transfer consenting patients with mental health and/or substance use concerns to a community-based clinic, diverting away from a hospital emergency department. ROWPHP has prioritized a co-design model for the ADC initiative that includes service providers, as well as individuals with lived or living experience of mental health and/or substance use concerns, and their family caregivers (PWLE). The goal of this study was to conduct a partnership evaluation of the ADC co-design initiative thus far (2023-2024), with the following specific objectives: () to identify facilitators and barriers to the inclusion and participation of PWLE in the co-design process, from the perspectives of both PWLE and service providers; and (2) to identify lessons learned for ongoing and future engagement of PWLE in the co-design, implementation, and evaluation of mental health and substance use supports. Approach: From March-April 2024, we conducted focus groups with ROWPHP staff and management (n=2 focus groups) and semi-structured interviews (n=7 total) with service providers (n=) and PWLE (n=6) involved in the ADC co-design process. Data collection focused on participant experiences and observations on the co-design process, specifically with respect to the participation of PWLE. Data were analyzed thematically, using a constant comparative and inductive approach. Ethics approval was provided by the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (#: 45579) Results: Participants identified the following facilitators to the inclusion and participation of PWLE in service co-design: having a PWLE as co-chair of the process, allowing them to advocate for and amplify the voices and needs of others; holding virtual meetings which were more accessible to some individuals; and creating structured agendas with diverse opportunities for engagement (i.e., breakout sessions). Use of systems-jargonby service providers, overall limited diversity and intersectional representation from other equity-deserving groups (i.e., 2SLGBTQIA+, newcomers), and lack of clarity regarding expectations for involvement were identified as barriers to inclusion and participation of PWLE. Overall, participants described how engaging PWLE requires intentional actions that foster inclusive, meaningful, and effective engagement. Lessons learned include a need for diverse recruitment practices, the provision of appropriate training to service providers (i.e., on trauma-informed care, language use), a need for flexible engagement opportunities for PWLE, and the importance of empowering PWLE to hold leadership and key decision-making roles within co-design processes. Implications: This study presents the facilitators, barriers, and complex challenges experienced when engaging PWLE in a co-design model for a community-based mental health and substance use clinic. Lessons learned from this case study may be instructive for other co-design processes that aim to centre and embed the voices of PWLE with mental health and substance use concerns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.022
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0060.021
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→