MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2410037826

[Issues, dilemmas and managerial strategies of potential ethical risks associated with the implementation of patient partnership practices in psychiatry: a case study].

2015· article· en· W2410037826 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne-Lise Lierville, Christine Grou, Jean‐François Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipMental healthCitizenshipService (business)Public relationsMedical educationService delivery frameworkPsychologyNursingMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessPoliticsPsychiatryMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In terms of health and social services, the territory of the province of Quebec is covered by four large 'integrated university health networks,' which are involved in the coordination of care delivery and medical training. The francophone components of the public mental health system for Montreal are thus primarily linked to the Integrated University Health Network of University of Montreal. In 2010, the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Montreal has included in its development strategy a firm commitment to the development and implementation of the 'patient partner expertise' in research, training and care in order to make this expertise no less than the brand of the Faculty. This commitment applies to all medical specialties that are taught at University of Montreal, including in psychiatry. More recently, the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal (IUSMM) has endorsed a new clinical vision that promotes full citizenship, which implies that service users and carers are considered as full partners with a specific expertise to be fully deployed. The objective of this paper is to examine, from an ethical point of view, the challenges that may be associated with involving such lay persons in various levels of mental health care planning and delivery, and in research. METHODS: This study is mainly based on a review of the institutional processes that are in place at the IUSMM to promote service users' participation in care planning and delivery, and in research. The focus is on the practicalities and conditions for the exercise of such an active participation, as some questions and concerns emerged through a series of interviews with different stakeholders. These issues are addressed and discussed through the lenses of the ethical values that were formalized at IUSMM. RESULTS: Despite a firm institutional commitment at IUSMM to implement its new citizenship-oriented clinical vision through greater service users' involvement, little is known about the possible negative impacts of their participation, on themselves and for regular employees. There is a consensus on the symbolic value of recognizing the potential of service users as contributors, as a peer workers or peer research assistants. This is an historic advance compared to a time when they were considered only as more or less passive recipients of services or as a simple research subjects. Some risk factors were nonetheless identified: isolation, emotional fatigue, possible relapse, insecurity, sometimes tensed relations with health or research professionals and misunderstanding. In organizational terms, among the pitfalls, the study highlighted the need for more cautious preparatory steps, guidance and support for service users and for professionals as well, and the importance of a global and integrated governance strategy. CONCLUSION: This study points to three main recommendations to better anticipate and manage possible risks associated with more or less improvised service users' active participation, as lay persons, in complex planning and service delivery and in research. The first would be directed towards professionals for them to reflect on the quality of the doctor-patient relationship in their facility as to see how service users can help to improve this relationship, but among a variety of stakeholders and without being the sole responsible for such an improvement, or for the lack of improvement thereof. The second recommendation would propose to draw an objective evaluative assessment of participatory approaches at the organizational level, promoting a real return of experience and in light of the issues raised by these practices. The third would recommend an update of the organizational ethical values when introducing practices that change the current paradigms of the provision of care and services and of research.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0340.020
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→