MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2410037826

[Issues, dilemmas and managerial strategies of potential ethical risks associated with the implementation of patient partnership practices in psychiatry: a case study].

2015· article· en· W2410037826 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Anne-Lise Lierville, Christine Grou, Jean‐François Pelletier

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeneral partnershipMental healthCitizenshipService (business)Public relationsMedical educationService delivery frameworkPsychologyNursingMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessPoliticsPsychiatryMarketing
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In terms of health and social services, the territory of the province of Quebec is covered by four large 'integrated university health networks,' which are involved in the coordination of care delivery and medical training. The francophone components of the public mental health system for Montreal are thus primarily linked to the Integrated University Health Network of University of Montreal. In 2010, the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Montreal has included in its development strategy a firm commitment to the development and implementation of the 'patient partner expertise' in research, training and care in order to make this expertise no less than the brand of the Faculty. This commitment applies to all medical specialties that are taught at University of Montreal, including in psychiatry. More recently, the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal (IUSMM) has endorsed a new clinical vision that promotes full citizenship, which implies that service users and carers are considered as full partners with a specific expertise to be fully deployed. The objective of this paper is to examine, from an ethical point of view, the challenges that may be associated with involving such lay persons in various levels of mental health care planning and delivery, and in research. METHODS: This study is mainly based on a review of the institutional processes that are in place at the IUSMM to promote service users' participation in care planning and delivery, and in research. The focus is on the practicalities and conditions for the exercise of such an active participation, as some questions and concerns emerged through a series of interviews with different stakeholders. These issues are addressed and discussed through the lenses of the ethical values that were formalized at IUSMM. RESULTS: Despite a firm institutional commitment at IUSMM to implement its new citizenship-oriented clinical vision through greater service users' involvement, little is known about the possible negative impacts of their participation, on themselves and for regular employees. There is a consensus on the symbolic value of recognizing the potential of service users as contributors, as a peer workers or peer research assistants. This is an historic advance compared to a time when they were considered only as more or less passive recipients of services or as a simple research subjects. Some risk factors were nonetheless identified: isolation, emotional fatigue, possible relapse, insecurity, sometimes tensed relations with health or research professionals and misunderstanding. In organizational terms, among the pitfalls, the study highlighted the need for more cautious preparatory steps, guidance and support for service users and for professionals as well, and the importance of a global and integrated governance strategy. CONCLUSION: This study points to three main recommendations to better anticipate and manage possible risks associated with more or less improvised service users' active participation, as lay persons, in complex planning and service delivery and in research. The first would be directed towards professionals for them to reflect on the quality of the doctor-patient relationship in their facility as to see how service users can help to improve this relationship, but among a variety of stakeholders and without being the sole responsible for such an improvement, or for the lack of improvement thereof. The second recommendation would propose to draw an objective evaluative assessment of participatory approaches at the organizational level, promoting a real return of experience and in light of the issues raised by these practices. The third would recommend an update of the organizational ethical values when introducing practices that change the current paradigms of the provision of care and services and of research.

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)0,018
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,042
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: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,094

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0180,042
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0340,020
Communication savante0,0110,008
Science ouverte0,0050,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,013
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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 Opus0,112
Tête enseignante GPT0,383
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · 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

Citations3
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed→Travaux en français237 207→