The Participatory Approach: A Specific French Organizational Model at the Department Level to Serve the Quality of Work Life of Healthcare Providers and the Quality of Care in Pediatric Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Care providers ‘psychological health at work is an important issue because it directly affects the quality of patient care. So far, few studies have studied the psychological health at work of care providers in paediatric oncology. The participatory approach (PA) is an innovative organizational model of department specific to France and previously associated with quality of work life (QWL) and job performance. The aim of the present study was to explore the relationships between the participatory approach, care providers’ QWL and quality of care of children in pediatric oncology departments in France. Methods: A multicentre survey was carried out in pediatric cancer units in France. Care providers completed a questionnaire assessing PA, QWL, consequences of QWL, and their perception of quality of care. The children or their parents completed a questionnaire assessing their perception of quality of care. Results: Five hundred and ten healthcare professionals working in French pediatric oncology centres (more than 40% of the healthcare staff in paediatric oncology in France), 142 children and 298 parents responded to the survey. PA was associated with the care providers’ QWL (β = 0.274; p < 0.001), work engagement (β = 0.167; p < 0.001), job satisfaction (β = 0.166; p < 0.001) and perception of quality of care (β = 0.236; p < 0.001). PA was also related to patients’ perception of quality of care notably regarding quality of communication (β = 0.161; p < 0.001) and information (β = 0.226; p < 0.001). Conclusion: PA is an innovative organizational model that appears to play a role in all aspects of healthcare providers’ QWL, and in the quality of care perceived by both care providers and patients. Keywords: quality of work life, quality of care, organization, management, pediatric oncology
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".