MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116298251 · doi:10.7202/1032389ar

Les rencontres entre médiateurs de santé pairs et usagers de la psychiatrie en France : caractéristiques générales et effets du dispositif sur les représentations des usagers. Partie 1

2015· article· fr· W2116298251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lise Demailly, Nadia Garnoussi

Bibliographic record

VenueSanté mentale au Québec · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This series of two parent papers describes, as part of an experimental program in France, the meetings that took place between consumers of psychiatric services and peer mentors. We report on the shape, style and characteristics of these interactions. Some of their effects are also reported. The peer mentors are hospital employees who are hired through renewable contracts or, for some, on permanent contracts. The program was led by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Mental Health for France, with the intention, beyond the creation of a 'new profession,' of transforming current practices and representations of public psychiatry teams towards recovery. The first paper discusses the general characteristics of the consumer/peer mentor meetings and the effects of this mechanism on the representations of the consumers about mental illness and more broadly about the health care system. The second paper reports on the therapeutic effects of these meetings. Some limitations and pitfalls are highlighted. METHODS: The program under study involved the hiring of (ex-) consumers of psychiatric services (n=29). These peer mentors are individuals 'who have had, or still have psychiatric disorders, and have experienced a process of recovery.' They were deployed in public psychiatric services after having been trainees for a year and having pursued a training of eight weeks, in parallel, that led to a peer mentor university degree. Our sample is mainly composed of patients who met at least once with a peer mentor, and who were recruited during the field survey in the sites (in-hospital, outpatient or in urban settings). We approached and spoke to patients who were likely to agree to be interviewed to share their experience and thoughts. They had to sign consent forms and thus they were told that we were working on this experimental program on peer mentors with a qualitative and inductive approach. The empirical data that is reported here comes from a qualitative sociological investigation that accompanied the evaluation of the implementation of the program between 2012 and 2014. We have conducted 74 interviews with consumers. We have a significant number of observations of the meetings between peer mentors and consumers, some of which were transcribed verbatim. We were also informed by informal discussions with consumers in every service, and through direct interviews with peer mentors, as well as through in situ observations. RESULTS: We used standardized prompt questions such as: 'Did you meet X,' or 'Do you know X?' We had to introduce the terms 'peer' or 'former patient.' In effect, in interviews with study participants it appeared that this 'X' was sometimes perceived as more of a nurse, and that they were not aware that this person was a 'peer mentor' or a former patient. The insistent style of some questions and the context of what could appear to be a formal assessment of a person's work might explain why study participants seemed inclined to give positive comments. A bias was also possible when study participants were recruited and 'prepared' by the treatment team for the interview. Despite these limitations, we can highlight the quality of the data. CONCLUSION: By the end of the experiment, 15 peer mentors were able to find and make their place in various services, despite important differences between situations with regards to their position in the institution, their degree of autonomy and responsibility, their working arrangements with other professionals, and their actual work. However, we were able to identify common determinants: the voluntary nature of the meetings; less normativity on behavior; the supply of time and availability; a distant relation to medical drugs; a blurring of boundaries between private and professional life; specific management of distance and familiarity. Concerning representations of illness and care, we found that the peer mentors actively contribute to disseminate a vision of recovery based on a positivist conception of personality. They also allow some criticism of other professionals and of the healthcare system. Consumers, in turn, evoke interactions based on the ease of contact, proximity and availability of peer mentors. This proximity can be linked to a form of camaraderie in the institutional context of care but can also lead consumers to see, in the peer mentor, a figure of 'hope.'

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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