Le développement de pratiques de soutien à l’exercice des droits en soins psychiatriques à partir de l’expérience qu’en font les personnes vivant avec une problématique de santé mentale en contexte d’hospitalisation ou de traitement involontaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Worldwide, there is an increased use of coercion in psychiatry, particularly through involuntary hospitalization or treatment. Like many other Canadian provinces, Quebec is no exception. However, the therapeutic outcomes of these measures are questioned when compared to voluntary care. Given the infringement of human rights and freedoms, coercion in psychiatry has been contested by many organizations, including the World Health Organization (2021). Human rights-based practices have been recognized as an important nursing role in Quebec. However, these practices are often informal and poorly documented in scientific literature. Objective: This article presents the research protocol of an interpretative phenomenological study that aims to understand the lived experiences of coercion and human rights-based practices in psychiatry from the perspectives of people living with mental health problems. Methods: This qualitative study uses an interpretative phenomenological analysis design developed by Smith et al. (2009). In depth, one-on-one interviews along with socio-demographic questionnaire will be conducted with approximately 10 participants. Data analysis will follow an iterative and hermeneutic emergence coding process. Discussion and conclusion: By centering human rights-based practices to the lived experiences of people living with mental health problems who encountered coercion, this study will highlight contributing and limiting factors to the recognition of human rights in nursing practices. This study will also promote the development of nursing knowledge and practices that can significantly contribute to individuals’ recovery process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".