MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508271186 · doi:10.7202/1025913ar

Participation publique et participation citoyenne des personnes utilisatrices de services en lien avec le Plan d’action en santé mentale 2005-2010 : leur rôle de porte-parole

2014· article· fr· W1508271186 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean‐François Pelletier, Sylvain D’Auteuil, Christian Ducasse, Lourdes Rodríguez del Barrio

Bibliographic record

VenueSanté mentale au Québec · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Among the guiding principles of the Mental Health Action Plan 2005-2010 (MHAP) of the Quebec Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux (Health and Social Services) is the recognition that persons who use mental health services (consumers) can be active agents of their own individual and collective recovery journey. In accordance with this principle, the MHAP called for greater participation of consumers in local, regional and national decision-making bodies within the network of health and social services in Quebec. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this article are to look back on the various forms of consumers' participation in connection with the MHAP since its enactment, and to better understand the complexities of being spokespersons through the Actor Network Theory conceptual framework. METHOD: A scientific literature review was conducted. Different angles of analysis were used to highlight convergences and trends based on official governmental publications and ongoing research on consumers' participation in decision and policy making. It was thought that a vertical case study approach would offer an historical perspective going back to the early 1960s to discuss the foundations of an "ideology of participation." Another way of assessing participation is through a horizontal approach that would compare the terms of participation implemented from one regional authority to the other, in order to cover most of the Quebec territory. RESULTS: The MHAP did not provide clear indicators of how to assess progress made with regards to greater consumer participation. In some regions of Quebec, this participation was coordinated by community organizations that designated their representatives. In other regions, local authorities included consumers on a more individual basis to give their opinion. As all were not at the same stage in their recovery process, some were in a position to speak using the "we," while others still needed to express themselves using the "I." In either case, their function as spokespersons proved to be a bi-directional function. In one direction, the spokesperson informed the governmental and institutional stakeholders about the expectations of consumers and about their daily life realities. In the other way, they were able to explain and make more intelligible the intricacies of the system with a lay language, which helped non specialists they encountered to remain informed partners, even though indirectly. As they shared their experience as spokespersons with their peers, their peers were able to get a clearer understanding of the progress made to effectively promote active and effective participation. The lack of clear expectations and dedicated means to support participation, induced discrepancies from one region to another, making it difficult, though, to assess progress made overall. CONCLUSION: As the function of spokesperson got more professionalized with increased opportunities to participate in policy and decision-making, spokespersons spoke from an "us" rather than an "I" standpoint. The concept of public participation evolved to one of civic participation, with the possibility to transcend the "us" and "them" dichotomy, as members of a community are all citizens to one another. Still, the terms and conditions of participation could be better defined and more predictable for greater equity in terms of access to different levels of policy and decision-making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSanté mentale au QuébecSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207