Le Web 2.0 pour soutenir le réseautage en santé mentale au Québec
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To support knowledge application of evidence-based practices in mental health rehabilitation in Quebec, the Centre for Studies on Rehabilitation, Recovery and Social Inclusion (CÉRRIS--www.cerrisweb.com) has set up a community of practice and has organized online activities. In this article, the authors present the community of practice (457 members to date) and the results of a three-year experience aimed at evaluating their appreciation with two online activities of dissemination and knowledge exchange: Web conference and debate blog. METHODS: The methodology used in this publication is part of a process of program evaluation. More specifically, a research mixed method was used (concurrent triangulation design). Qualitative data (from qualitative questionnaires) and quantitative data (from Google analytics -participation and attendance data) were collected in parallel and incorporated into analysis step. Forty qualitative questionnaires were completed to identify the benefits, barriers, challenges and facilitators encountered during their participation in the activity. The participants are members of the community of practice of the CÉRRIS and are people with mental illness, family members, practitioners, researchers, students, managers and policy makers in the field of mental health rehabilitation and come from different regions of Quebec, Canada and French speaking areas of Europe. Quantitative data on participation and attendance were collected and analyzed throughout the first three years of implementation of the CÉRRIS. Qualitative data from the questionnaires were analyzed following a content analysis process. Quantitative data were analyzed using Excel. RESULTS: Since September 2010, 14,061 unique visitors navigated on the CÉRRIS website (23,391 visits) and 2,278 people visited the blog (10,393 visits). Ninety-nine members of the community of practice attended at least one of the 13 Web conferences. Web conference allows a) access to evidence-based practices, b) networking and contact between individuals of different areas and c) access to continuing education remotely. A total of 62 members of the community of practice have actively taken part in one of the 5 debates on the blog. The activity of debate blog a) promotes egalitarian exchanges between different actors in mental health sector, b) encourages diversity of viewpoints and c) create a forum for dialogue and reduce stigma towards people with mental illnesses. For both types of Web activities, technological barriers (network security, outdated computer equipment, etc.) restrained the full participation of the participants. However, the assistance received from organizations and their openness towards new technologies has facilitated the experience of participants in both activities. CONCLUSION: Online activities as Web conference and debate blog are interesting avenues to facilitate access to knowledge and support exchanges between clinical, academic, community-based communities, people who use mental health services and their families.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».