Fear of Reprisal and Change Agency in the Public Health and Social Service System: Protocol for a Sequential Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Since they are key witnesses to the systemic difficulties and social inequities experienced by vulnerable patients, health and social service (HSS) professionals and clinical managers must act as change agents. Using their expertise to achieve greater social justice, change agents employ a wide range of actions that span a continuum from the clinical (microsystem) to the societal (macrosystem) sphere and involve actors inside and outside the HSS system. Typically, however, clinical professionals and managers act in a circumscribed manner, that is, within the clinical sphere and with patients and colleagues. Among the hypotheses explaining this reduced scope of action is the fear of reprisal. Little is known about the prevalence of this fear and its complex dynamics. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The overall aim is to gain a better understanding of the complex dynamic process leading to clinical professionals’ and managers’ fear of reprisal in their change agent actions and senior administrators’ and managers’ determination of wrongdoing. The objectives are (1) to estimate the prevalence of fear of reprisal among clinical professionals and managers; (2) to identify the factors involved in (a) the emergence of this fear among clinical professionals and managers, and (b) the determination of wrongdoing by senior administrators and managers; (3) to describe the process of emergence of (a) the fear of reprisal among clinical professionals and managers, and (b) the determination of wrongdoing by senior administrators and managers; and (4) to document the legal and ethical issues associated with the factors identified (objective 2) and the processes described (objective 3). </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Based on the Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect model, a 3-part sequential mixed methods design will include (1) a web-based survey (objective 1), (2) a qualitative grounded theory design (objectives 2 and 3), and (3) legal and ethical analysis (objective 4). Survey: 77,794 clinical professionals or clinical managers working in the Québec public HSS system will be contacted via email. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Grounded theory design: for each of the 3 types of participants (clinical professionals, clinical managers, and senior administrators and managers), a theoretical sample of 15 to 30 people will be selected via various strategies. Data will be independently analyzed using constant comparison process. Legal and ethical analysis: situations described by participants will be analyzed using, respectively, applicable legislation and jurisprudence and 2 ethical models. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> This ongoing study began in June 2022 and is scheduled for completion by March 2027. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Instead of acting, fear of reprisal could induce clinical professionals to tolerate situations that run counter to their social justice values. To ensure they use their capacities for serving a population that is or could become vulnerable, it is important to know the prevalence of the fear of reprisal and gain a better understanding of its complex dynamics. </sec> <sec> <title>INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT</title> PRR1-10.2196/48400 </sec>
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 | 0,034 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».