Approche terminologique de l’engagement des patients : point de vue d’un établissement de santé français
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’établissement d’une terminologie commune pragmatique en langue française, actuellement non-disponible, représente la première étape de structuration des démarches d’engagement des patients dans les établissements de santé. Dans le cadre du déploiement de l’engagement des patients au sein d’un centre hospitalo-universitaire, nous proposons une terminologie de l’engagement des patients. Une revue exploratoire (scoping review) de la littérature internationale visant à recenser les principaux cadres conceptuels et terminologiques de l’engagement des patients, usagers et citoyens dans le système de santé a été réalisée dans les bases de données PubMed et Cairn.info pour les articles de langue anglaise et française jusqu’en 2019. Cette revue a été complétée par un recensement des concepts et pratiques dans les organisations leader des pays où cette démarche était implantée (États-Unis, Canada et spécialement la province de Québec, Royaume-Uni) Et des échanges étroits et réflexions avec l’équipe ayant développé le modèle de Montréal. Au total, 75 références et ressources internet ont été consultées. Les termes de patients, interaction, expérience patient, savoirs expérientiels, engagement des patients, patient-partenaire et ses déclinaisons en patient-ressource, pair-aidant, formateur, chercheur et coach, ont été définis. Ce travail sur la terminologie de l’engagement des patients propose une simplification et une première stabilisation du vocabulaire avec une approche pragmatique. Cette contribution vise à promouvoir le développement d’un nouveau modèle de soins et plus largement de management du système santé, associant les savoirs scientifiques et expérientiels. The establishment of a common pragmatic terminology represents the first step in structuring patient engagement initiatives in healthcare facilities. However, none is currently available in French. As part of the deployment of patient engagement within a French University Hospital Center, we propose a terminology of patient engagement. We conducted a scoping review of the international literature that aimed at identifying the main conceptual and terminological frameworks for the engagement of patients, users and citizens in the healthcare system until 2019 in the PubMed and Cairn.info databases for English and French language articles. Additionally, we identified concepts and practices in the leading organizations of countries where this approach was implemented (United States, Canada and especially the province of Quebec, United Kingdom) and completed this approach by close exchanges and reflections with the team that developed the Montreal model. In total, 75 references and Internet resources were consulted. Patient, interaction, patient experience, experiential knowledge, patient engagement, patient partner and its variations as a resource patient, peer-supporter, trainer, researcher and coach have been defined. This terminology of patient engagement proposes an initial stabilization of the vocabulary, using a pragmatic approach. This contribution is a first step aiming at promoting the development of a new model of care and more broadly of healthcare system management, involving scientific 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 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 | 0.080 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".