L’engagement des patients dans la formation des étudiants en soins infirmiers : une étude exploratoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The initial training of healthcare professionals can be used to develop health democracy if patients are sufficiently involved. Objectives: To describe the level of patient engagement in some nurse training institutes and to understand what motivates and hinders this engagement. Method: Exploratory study based on interviews with five patient trainers and eight nurse training institute trainers. The analysis of patient engagement levels was based in part on the Carman scale and the Montreal model. Results: Two trends emerged from this first study: consultation-style patient involvement, and partnershipstyle involvement, where the patient is involved in the pedagogical co-construction of a few teaching units and not of the entire training course. Elements facilitating patient involvement were linked to the participants’ motivation, patient support, and patient recruitment methods. Conversely, a lack of institutional motivation, overly demanding recruitment, the absence of remuneration, and inaccessibility could be barriers to patient engagement. Conclusion: Patient engagement in preliminary healthcare training should be considered across the entire curriculum and formalized.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".