MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002848983 · doi:10.1016/j.amp.2020.01.010

Évaluation du sentiment d’efficacité des cliniciens lors d’une formation TCC pour la gestion des hallucinations auditives en groupe : étude Accept Voices©

2020· article· fr· W3002848983 on OpenAlexaff
A. Bourcier, François Olivier, Tania Lecomte, Stacey Callahan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Médico-psychologiques revue psychiatrique · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersRégion Occitanie Pyrénées-Méditerranée
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche sur l’efficacité d’une approche groupale pour la gestion des hallucinations acoustico-verbales (HAVs), nous avons mesuré le sentiment d’efficacité des cliniciens pour aider leurs patients à faire face aux phénomènes hallucinatoires, avant et après avoir reçu une formation. Vingt-trois cliniciens ont reçu une formation de trois jours pour acquérir les bases nécessaires à la mise en place et la gestion des séances de l’intervention groupale pour la gestion des HAVs. Le sentiment d’efficacité des cliniciens pour aider leurs patients à gérer leurs HAVs a été mesuré avant et après la formation. Le sentiment d’efficacité initial des cliniciens pour aider leurs patients à gérer leurs HAVs était relativement faible. Après la formation, tous les cliniciens ont vu leur sentiment d’efficacité s’améliorer, que ce soit pour la gestion des HAVs en groupe ou en individuel. La formation de trois jours, dispensée dans le cadre de notre recherche, semble avoir été suffisante et efficace pour amener les cliniciens à mettre en œuvre et à gérer l’intervention groupale sur les HAVs. Aider les patients à faire face aux HAVs peut être difficile pour les cliniciens exerçant en psychiatrie. La nécessité d’évoluer dans sa pratique et d’acquérir de nouvelles compétences issues d’approche telles que les TCC peut permettre de combler cette lacune. La pertinence de l’évaluation du sentiment d’efficacité des thérapeutes pour aider leur patient à gérer les hallucinations pour l’amélioration de la pratique clinique y est discutée. The objective of this study was to measure clinicians’ self-efficacy (psychologists and psychiatrists) in helping their patients cope with auditory hallucinations, before and after receiving a specific training in this regard. This research work was part of a larger clinical research project to assess the feasibility and effects of a CBT/third wave group approach for the management of auditory hallucinations in patients with schizophrenia. Currently, in France few CBT/third wave approaches to treating patients with schizophrenic disorders who hear voices are being offered. Given our study, we were also interested in determining how efficacious clinicians working with this clientele feel when helping their patients better understand and manage their voices. Our main objective was to train clinicians to become efficacious in working with patients with auditory hallucinations, particularly in using the CBT/third wave group intervention under study. After responding to a call for projects launched with nine mental health institutions in the Occitanie region of France, 23 clinicians (psychologists and psychiatrists) accepted to participate and received a three-day training. The purpose of this training was to: 1) develop the basic skills necessary in CBT/third wave to deal with psychotic disorders (non-confrontational approaches, coping development, CBT/third wave principles and basic exercises; 2) acquire competence in managing group sessions for the intervention called Accept Voices; 3) ensure the protocol is respected for the implementation of the study in the region (regulatory and research ethics aspect). A 15-items questionnaire with a response system based on a percentage score was developed specifically for this research. The items addressed different clinical situations, in order to assess clinicians’ sense of self-efficacy in helping their patients manage their auditory hallucinations, both in a group and individually. This measurement was done with clinicians before and after receiving the training. Regardless of the clinicians’ therapeutic orientation (CBT or psychoanalysis) and the number of years in working with psychotic disorders, the initial level of clinicians’ sense of efficacy in helping their patients manage their auditory hallucinations was relatively low, for both individual and group interventions. Following the training, the 23 clinicians saw their self-efficacy significantly improve, in both conditions (group and individual), regarding their ability to help their patients better manage their voices. Subsequently, after the training, 12 of the 23 clinicians were able to implement the group intervention method for voice management acquired during the training. The three-day training, provided as part of our study, appears to have been sufficient and effective to engage clinicians in implementing and managing the group intervention. It has also helped improve their skills and feelings of efficacy in their daily practice with individuals with schizophrenia. The outcomes from our study, which were part of a larger research project evaluating the effectiveness of a group intervention for auditory hallucinations, allowed us to observe an initial low self-efficacy among clinicians in helping their patients manage their auditory hallucinations. Fortunately, the training appeared successful in improving their self-efficacy. For many, helping patients cope with auditory hallucinations with psychotherapeutic tools, rather than solely with medication, was deemed difficult prior to the training. Despite the small size of our sample, these results encourage further initiatives to train clinicians who accompany patients with psychotic disorders in CBT/Third wave therapeutic approaches.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnales Médico-psychologiques revue psychiatriqueSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207