The many roles of people with lived experience and how these can be better supported within integrated care policy and implementation: a world cafe discussion.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: This workshop will explore the many roles that people with lived experience of health and social care can play in shaping the vision, planning and implementation of integrated care and consider what supports would enable them to fulfil these roles. Why are you conducting a workshop? Whilst it is widely accepted that integrated care policy and programmes should be based on the needs and interests of people with lived experience of health and social care and their communities, this is rarely achieved in practice. The workshop team have led two international projects regarding co-production within integrated care ( ‘citizen leader research’ by the Universities of Birmingham, Leiden and Toronto and the Changemakers project within Transform). A common issue identified is that people involved in such activities are asked to take on different roles – for example as a champion, ambassador, advocate, partner, advisor, connector, or leader – with the nature of these roles affecting the expectations of them and the identities that they adopt. We would like to run a workshop to give participants an opportunity to explore what is meant by these roles, how people can be supported to do so effectively, and how organisations and professions can provide a receptive context. Who is it for? The workshop is for people with lived experience of health and social care (including family carers) and professionals, policy makers, managers and academics who are committed to co-production as the basis of integrated care. What are you going to do? 8 minutes introduction & overview of the roles that people with lived experience play (as identified in the projects) 5 minutes response from WHO based on their meaningful engagement framework 2 minutes explanation of the engagement exercise 40 minutes (or ideally longer if we are able to have a 90 minute session) world café discussion 5 minutes summary feedback from each table How are you going to engage with the audience? Participants will have opportunity to move around the world café table – each one will focus on a different role that people take on. A facilitator will remain at each table to encourage discussion on the nature, support, and context for such a role. The discussion will be visually recorded to enable participants to build on what has come before to enable a rich and diverse conversation. How are you going to summarize the take home messages?There will be short feedback from each table on main points discussed – the facilitation team will then write up the discussions into a short and accessible summary which will be shared through social media, integrated care networks and relevant WHO routes.
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 | 0,057 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,032 | 0,035 |
| Communication savante | 0,025 | 0,040 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,036 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,031 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,002 |
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 ».