Improving patients’ understanding of their rights under British Columbia’s Mental Health Act
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In a 2011 survey of mental health patients in BC, 43% of respondents who had been involuntarily hospitalized said that their rights under the Mental Health Act were not explained to them in a way they could understand. One possible reason for this lack of understanding is that the document used to give rights information to involuntary patients, the statutory Form 13, may not be an effective communication tool. Another possible reason is that the rights-information process doesn’t meet patients’ information needs. Using a qualitative approach anchored in a transformative research paradigm, which seeks to redress power differences by involving the community of interest in designing and implementing solutions, I aimed to identify key features of a patient-centred rights-information process. First, I user tested Form 13 with people who had experienced involuntary hospitalization. The main findings were that the form’s content was unclear and had an intimidating and disempowering tone. Armed with this feedback, I coordinated a patient-oriented research team to develop a new suite of rights-communication tools to supplement Form 13. I user tested the tools with people who had experienced involuntary hospitalization. Participants found the suite of tools friendlier to use compared with Form 13. They appreciated that the many formats within the suite would accommodate different communication preferences and would give patients several opportunities to learn about their rights. I did a thematic analysis of the full set of user-testing interviews to learn more about involuntary patients’ experiences with the rights-information process. A key theme was that patients wanted more transparency and open communication about every aspect of their hospitalization. They also wanted clinicians to foster a culture where patients could feel safe talking about rights. The uncertainty from a lack of information exacerbated participants’ mental distress and made some fearful of hospitalization. A better understanding of what they could do under the legislation and how much they could participate in treatment decisions would reduce feelings of powerlessness and could help involuntary patients engage in their own recovery.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».