Ministers as informal mental health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although not typically considered formal mental health care professionals, clergy are regularly contacted as a resource by people with mental illness.Little is known about the clergy's role in this capacity.The aim of this research is to explore the experiences and perspectives of Canadian ministers of the United Church in response to mental health issues using simple qualitative description.Three female and nine male urban ministers of the United Church of Canada were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews.Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by hand for relevant themes.Themes within the following three main topics emerged: how ministers served people with mental illness, ministers' experiences working alongside formal mental health care professionals, and remaining challenges and facilitators.Ministers reported providing various support services for people with mental illness.While ministers reported little direct collaboration, they reported regularly referring people with suspected mental illness to formal mental health care professionals.Finally, ministers cited an innate trustworthiness in their profession and their community as facilitators, while remaining challenges included limitations in terms of financial resources, time, trust between themselves and formal mental health care professionals, and trust between ministers and their colleagues.The findings of this research indicate that collaborative relationships should be encouraged between formal mental health care professionals and ministers of the United Church to better serve people with mental illness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".