[Patient participation in the assessment of alternatives to restraint and seclusion].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the perceptions of members of a working group of caregivers, health technology assessment (HTA) units members, healthcare facilities managers and patients representatives regarding the participation of the latter in the assessment of alternatives to restraint and seclusion among adults in short-term psychiatric wards and in long-term care facilities for the elderly, in Quebec. METHODS: A descriptive design was used for this research based on fifteen semi-structured interviews with caregivers, healthcare managers, patient representatives and HTA unit members. The direct observation of two meetings of the working group and informal discussions with participants at these meetings was also performed. Data analysis was based on a framework developed to assess patients' involvement in HTA. RESULTS: Information resources and human resources were mobilized to support the participation of patients' representatives. Nevertheless, this participation was uneven between patients' representatives due to their personal characteristics, the understanding of their role in this working group and expectations of the committee. The presence of patient representatives led caregivers and managers to focus the assessment on patients' concerns and to adjust the language used during the meeting. Moreover, organizational and political context has been identified as a facilitator for this participation. CONCLUSION: Involving patients' representatives in HTA activities is thus possible. However, some resources must be mobilized to equip patients' representatives who participate in these activities and personal characteristics should be considered when selecting them to favour their involvement
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".