Young adult perspectives on dignity in mental healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe promotion of human dignity lies at the core of ethical patient-centered healthcare and encompasses the inherent worth, value, and respect that patients deserve. Little is known about how this concept applies to the distinct needs and challenges faced by young adults (young adults) seeking mental healthcare.ObjectiveThis study hopes to provide deeper insights into young adults perspectives about the factors that contribute to and hinder their sense of human dignity within the mental healthcare system.Research designA descriptive qualitative approach was used to explore participant perspectives through semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was performed on the interview transcripts by three coders.Participants and research contextThirteen young adults patients attending an ambulatory mental health clinic for mood and anxiety disorders in London, Ontario participated in this study.Ethical considerationsThis study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved by the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at the University of Western Ontario.Findings/resultsYound adults interviewed emphasize equality and equity as crucial aspects of dignity, value agency and involvement in healthcare decision-making as well as opportunities to engage with peers, and recognize system wide constraints as a barrier to feeling as though they have dignity within the healthcare system.ConclusionsWhile the young adults interviewed acknowledged that dignity is inherent to all people, they emphasized that all people are not treated as though they have dignity either in mental healthcare or in broader society based on their social location. To provide dignity affirming mental healthcare for young adults, clinicians should: approach their relationship with clients from a lens of cultural humility to provide individualized care, directly involve clients in their treatment plans, encourage client connection with their peers and communities, and actively consider and address systemic challenges that impact client wellbeing and sense of dignity at the societal level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".