Participation and inclusion: mental health service users' lived experience: an international study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the UK, progress has been made in terms of awareness of the barriers to participation and social inclusion that is experienced by people with severe and enduring mental health problems (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004). Yet it is unclear whether mental health service users in other countries report similar or differing experiences of social inclusion and/or exclusion. Rudman et al. (2008) argued that an international perspective was needed to 'add new ideas to existing theories, raise awareness of the assumptions underpinning existing concepts, and help guard against assumptions of universality'. If there were any, the particular in each country needed to be emphasised. This three-centre international study examined, compared and contrasted the experiences of mental health service users with enduring problems in regional areas of Ireland, Canada and Australia, focusing on the factors that influenced their\nexperience of participation and social inclusion in their respective communities. This was a two-phase, mixed-methodology study utilising the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework for enquiry for practice and research. In the first phase, a questionnaire was developed from the ICF components of Activities and Participation to examine enduring mental health users' experiences. The second, qualitative, phase, reported here, captured\nparticipants' experiences through interviews about these issues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".