Original Research Agreement Between Staff and Service Users Concerning the Clientele’s Mental Health Needs: A Quebec Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
or a few years now, a broad consensus has existed in the mental health field that services based on client needs are required to plan and direct staff interventions. However, ser-vice users and health care professionals have different per-spectives on what constitutes a need (1). It was precisely to gauge the needs of people with severe mental health problems that the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN) question-naire was developed (2). The CAN’s main feature is that it takes into account the viewpoint of both the user and the key health worker and thus provides a more comprehensive over-view. The CAN’s reliability was tested over the past few years in the UK (3), in Scandinavia (4,5), in the Netherlands (6), and in Australia (7). However, few studies have used the CAN in a Canadian population. Moreover, except for studies by McCrone and others (8) and Najim and McCrone (9), few studies have analyzed the differences between users and staff Can J Psychiatry, Vol 51, No 5, April 2006 281 Objectives: This article examines the differences found between clientele with severe mental health problems and their key health workers in terms of assessing service users’ needs in 6 Quebec service areas. Method: We questioned 165 pairs of users and staff, using the Camberwell Assessment of Needs questionnaire. The profile of serious and overall problems encountered by clientele from each of the sites was compared. Results: The sites with the greatest degree of user–staff agreement in identifying problems were also the ones where users considered that local services best met their needs. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that, in needs assessment, major differences exist between the perceptions of users and their key workers in the various sites. These differences can be explained in part by users ’ individual characteristics, by types of needs, by local particularities, and by service use. (Can J Psychiatry 2006;51:281–286) Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".