Engaging People With Lived Experience in Mental Health Service Co-design in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the process of engaging people with lived and living experience (PWLE) of mental health and substance use concerns in the co-design of a mental health service in Ontario, Canada known as an Alternate Destination Clinic (ADC). Specific objectives were to: (a) to explore the experiences of PWLE within a community-led health service co-design process; and (b) to identify lessons learned for engagement of PWLE that can be applied to future health service co-design processes. Using qualitative descriptive methodology, from March to April 2024, focus groups were conducted with organizational staff ( n = 2 focus groups) and semi-structured interviews ( n = 17 total) with service providers ( n = 11) and PWLE ( n = 6) involved in the ADC co-design process. Data collection focused on participant experiences and observations with respect to the participation of PWLE. Data were analyzed using content analysis, informed by the Bee et al. framework for service user-involved care planning. Participants emphasized organizational recruitment efforts, the co-design committee’s structure, and how roles were designed and communicated as factors that affected PWLE experiences. 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), and the importance of empowering PWLE to develop and hold key decision-making roles within co-design processes. Findings point to the integration of individual, relational, and organizational factors in shaping the experience of PWLE in the service co-design process, and collaboration dynamics overall.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".