The perspectives of people with lived experience, families, and researchers with the manuscript writing process in mental health and substance use research: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engaging people with lived experience and their families (PWLE/F) as partners in mental health and substance use research can have a positive impact. One way to understand this engagement process and its impact is by reporting on it in peer-reviewed papers. However, little is known about the experiences of PWLE/F and researchers regarding the reporting of engagement activities in peer-reviewed papers and navigating the writing process for such publications. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore the experiences of PWLE/F and researchers with the writing process for engagement in mental health and substance use research. Separate from participants, PWLE/F were engaged in all phases of the study as partners during the research process. Interviews were conducted with 13 PWLE/F and 12 researchers across Canada via Zoom. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes captured the experiences of PWLE/F: navigating uncharted territories, the disclosure dilemma, and paving the way for meaningful co-authorship. Four themes represented the experiences of researchers: prioritizing informed co-authorship, frustrations with reporting on engagement, navigating how and when to report on engagement, and finding clarity amidst ambiguity. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the complex experiences of PWLE/F and researchers with the writing process for engagement-focused papers. Overall findings indicate a need for clear guidance for both researchers and PWLE/F involved in mental health and substance use research projects, particularly around what to report on and how to meaningfully collaborate in peer-reviewed papers.
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 | 0.020 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".