MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2116298251 · doi:10.7202/1032389ar

Les rencontres entre médiateurs de santé pairs et usagers de la psychiatrie en France : caractéristiques générales et effets du dispositif sur les représentations des usagers. Partie 1

2015· article· fr· W2116298251 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lise Demailly, Nadia Garnoussi

Notice bibliographique

RevueSanté mentale au Québec · 2015
Typearticle
Languefr
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMental Health and Patient Involvement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This series of two parent papers describes, as part of an experimental program in France, the meetings that took place between consumers of psychiatric services and peer mentors. We report on the shape, style and characteristics of these interactions. Some of their effects are also reported. The peer mentors are hospital employees who are hired through renewable contracts or, for some, on permanent contracts. The program was led by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Mental Health for France, with the intention, beyond the creation of a 'new profession,' of transforming current practices and representations of public psychiatry teams towards recovery. The first paper discusses the general characteristics of the consumer/peer mentor meetings and the effects of this mechanism on the representations of the consumers about mental illness and more broadly about the health care system. The second paper reports on the therapeutic effects of these meetings. Some limitations and pitfalls are highlighted. METHODS: The program under study involved the hiring of (ex-) consumers of psychiatric services (n=29). These peer mentors are individuals 'who have had, or still have psychiatric disorders, and have experienced a process of recovery.' They were deployed in public psychiatric services after having been trainees for a year and having pursued a training of eight weeks, in parallel, that led to a peer mentor university degree. Our sample is mainly composed of patients who met at least once with a peer mentor, and who were recruited during the field survey in the sites (in-hospital, outpatient or in urban settings). We approached and spoke to patients who were likely to agree to be interviewed to share their experience and thoughts. They had to sign consent forms and thus they were told that we were working on this experimental program on peer mentors with a qualitative and inductive approach. The empirical data that is reported here comes from a qualitative sociological investigation that accompanied the evaluation of the implementation of the program between 2012 and 2014. We have conducted 74 interviews with consumers. We have a significant number of observations of the meetings between peer mentors and consumers, some of which were transcribed verbatim. We were also informed by informal discussions with consumers in every service, and through direct interviews with peer mentors, as well as through in situ observations. RESULTS: We used standardized prompt questions such as: 'Did you meet X,' or 'Do you know X?' We had to introduce the terms 'peer' or 'former patient.' In effect, in interviews with study participants it appeared that this 'X' was sometimes perceived as more of a nurse, and that they were not aware that this person was a 'peer mentor' or a former patient. The insistent style of some questions and the context of what could appear to be a formal assessment of a person's work might explain why study participants seemed inclined to give positive comments. A bias was also possible when study participants were recruited and 'prepared' by the treatment team for the interview. Despite these limitations, we can highlight the quality of the data. CONCLUSION: By the end of the experiment, 15 peer mentors were able to find and make their place in various services, despite important differences between situations with regards to their position in the institution, their degree of autonomy and responsibility, their working arrangements with other professionals, and their actual work. However, we were able to identify common determinants: the voluntary nature of the meetings; less normativity on behavior; the supply of time and availability; a distant relation to medical drugs; a blurring of boundaries between private and professional life; specific management of distance and familiarity. Concerning representations of illness and care, we found that the peer mentors actively contribute to disseminate a vision of recovery based on a positivist conception of personality. They also allow some criticism of other professionals and of the healthcare system. Consumers, in turn, evoke interactions based on the ease of contact, proximity and availability of peer mentors. This proximity can be linked to a form of camaraderie in the institutional context of care but can also lead consumers to see, in the peer mentor, a figure of 'hope.'

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,099

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,414
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSanté mentale au QuébecMême sujetMental Health and Patient InvolvementTravaux en français237 207