Évaluation qualitative de l’implantation de groupes psychoéducatifs pour le trouble bipolaire à Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Bipolar disorder is a chronic condition which significantly impacts the functioning and quality of life of patients with the disorder. Recognized efficacious psychological interventions, such as group psychoeducation, can help better address some of the limitations observed when pharmacotherapy is used alone in the management of bipolar disorder. However, access to these evidence-based interventions seems to be limited for most patients. Indeed, the translation of knowledge acquired through research towards actual clinical settings poses a significant challenge. Assessing the implementation of these efficacious interventions in clinical practice is thus a priority. The objective of this study is to describe the implementation of a psychoeducative intervention, the Life Goals Program (LGP), for the treatment of bipolar disorder in community mental health settings in Quebec City. Methods The LGP was implemented in three different clinical settings located in Quebec City. Fifteen healthcare service providers chosen by their respective clinical site were trained to deliver the intervention. They delivered the treatment to 73 patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Healthcare service providers filled a log book after each group session, in order to assess whether they had properly delivered the content of the program. At the end of the study, they also participated in a group interview in order to get a better understanding of their experience delivering the intervention and their appreciation of the research process. Results Following qualitative content analysis, four main categories of factors that could influence the implementation of the intervention were identified: 1) healthcare service providers' characteristics (academic training, clinical experience, personality, knowledge of the program, and dynamic between animators); 2) participants' characteristics; 3) organizational context (physical and material environment, staff stability, administrative management and research requirements); and 4) facilitation (perception of research, research team support, and facilitation tools). These categories derived from data analysis coincide with those observed in the literature. The following factors seemed to have had the most impact in the differences observed between sites in the implementation of the LGP: the support offered by the research team; staff stability; and the academic training of healthcare services providers. Conclusion Dissemination and implantation studies can not only help determine factors that are important to consider when implementing a program, but can also help improve and adapt these programs in order to increase acceptability and effectiveness in real world clinical settings.
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 | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".