Partage du savoir expérientiel : regard sur la contribution des patients partenaires d’enseignement en sciences infirmières
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to identify the main scientific literature on patient involvement in the education of health professionals. METHODS: A literature review with keywords ''patient partner' OR 'service user' AND 'education'' in the CINAHL database identified 26 articles related to the involvement of patient partners in the training and education of health professionals. RESULTS: The presence of patient partners is positively assessed. Teachers would be able to humanize and to nuance theoretical concepts by presenting people living with a mental health problem. Students have new skills, change their attitude positively by being more aware of the factors of stigmatization in mental health and their perspective on the patient would broaden by taking in consideration the health in its entirety. Finally, patient partners, by their unveiling, would feel the therapeutic effects, a sense of pride to be recognized as peers and would exercise a civic contribution by participating in the training of health professionals. However, the literature does not allow these assertions to be evidence-based. CONCLUSION: Some challenges remain for genuine involvement of patients beginning with their integration at every levels of development in training and education programs and a better balance between scientific knowledge and experiential knowledge.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".