[Issues, dilemmas and managerial strategies of potential ethical risks associated with the implementation of patient partnership practices in psychiatry: a case study].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 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 | 0,018 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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.
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 ».