Politiques et plans d’action en santé mentale dans l’OCDE : leçons pour le Québec ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research are: 1) to provide a conceptual framework for analyzing mental health policies; 2) to compare mental health policies across a sample of OECD jurisdictions; 3) to describe configurations of mental health policies; 4) to identify practical implications for the Province of Quebec. DESIGN: This research is a comparative synthetic study of mental health policies. SAMPLING: The web sites of the Ministries of health of the thirty-four OECD countries and ten Canadian Provinces were searched for mental health policies proposed within the last fifteen years. Twenty one such policies (with an English or French version) were retrieved, covering thirteen OECD countries, six Canadian Provinces and the WHO. ANALYSIS: Content analysis was performed based on the categories (differentiation, integration, governance) and sub-categories of the aforementioned conceptual framework. Eight policies that together cover the variations encountered between all policies were used to identify typical configurations. RESULTS: A conceptual framework derived from Parsons' Theory of Social Action posits that social action systems must exhibit a level of internal differentiation that corresponds to the heterogeneity of their external environment and also a level of integration that allows them to remain coherent despite the complexity of their environment. Governance mechanisms help them maintain an equilibrium between differentiation and integration.In terms of differentiation, mental health policies exhibit much variation between the needs and the groups that are prioritized (age, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc.), the types of interventions that are proposed (promotion, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, etc.), the systemic levels at which interventions take place (society, government as a whole, health care system, organizations, programs, individuals), and the level of specification and scientific basis of proposed interventions. In terms of integration, policies promote various mechanisms belonging to four general categories of increasing effectiveness from hierarchical separation of mandates, to exchange of information, to collaborative planning, and to complete structural integration and co-localisation of certain components (ex. dependence and mental health services). In terms of governance, policies present program theories of varying explicitness and scientific bases, and with different emphases on structures, processes or outcomes. Management models also vary in terms of precision, accountability, financing mechanisms, information systems, and the importance of clinical governance and quality improvement.Five configurations of mental health policies are identified (the public health, the professional, the structural technocratic, the functional technocratic, and the political), each comprising typical combinations of the preceding ingredients. CONCLUSION: The current Quebec mental health policy belongs to the structural technocratic configuration. It specifies fragmented mental health structures with mild integration mechanisms. In the future, it should consider improving its public health aspects (inter-sector work on the determinants of mental health), professional aspects (emphasis on scientific evidence, clinical governance and quality), and functional aspects (integrated specialized community mental health and addiction services). But political factors may prevent it from doing so.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".