Experiences and Expectations of Information and Communication Technologies in Flexible Assertive Community Treatment Teams: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) is a model of integrated care for patients with long-term serious mental illness. FACT teams deliver services using assertive outreach to treat patients who can be hard to reach by the health care service, and focus on both the patient's health and their social situation. However, in Norway, FACT team members have challenges with their information and communication (ICT) solutions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore Norwegian FACT teams' experiences and expectations of their ICT solutions, including electronic health records, electronic whiteboards, and calendars. METHODS: We gathered data in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted semistructured interviews with team leaders and team coordinators, and made observations in FACT teams targeting adults. In the second phase, we conducted semistructured group interviews in FACT teams targeting youth. We performed a thematic analysis of the data in a theoretical manner to address the specific objectives of the study. RESULTS: A total of 8 teams were included, with 5 targeting adults and 3 targeting youth. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were not able to perform observations in 2 of the teams targeting adults. Team leaders and coordinators in all 5 teams targeting adults were interviewed, with a total of 7 team members participating in the teams targeting youth. We found various challenges with communication, documentation, and organization for FACT teams. The COVID-19 pandemic was challenging for the teams and changed the way they used ICT solutions. There were issues with some technical solutions used in the teams, including electronic health records, electronic whiteboards, and calendars. Lack of integration and access to data were some of the main issues identified. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the FACT model being successfully implemented in Norway, there are several issues regarding the ICT solutions they use, mainly related to access to data and integration. Further research is required to detail how improved ICT solutions should be designed. While FACT teams targeting adults and youth differ in some ways, their needs for ICT solutions are largely similar.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".