Fear of Reprisal and Change Agency in the Public Health and Social Service System: Protocol for a Sequential Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since they are key witnesses to the systemic difficulties and social inequities experienced by vulnerable patients, health and social service (HSS) professionals and clinical managers must act as change agents. Using their expertise to achieve greater social justice, change agents employ a wide range of actions that span a continuum from the clinical (microsystem) to the societal (macrosystem) sphere and involve actors inside and outside the HSS system. Typically, however, clinical professionals and managers act in a circumscribed manner, that is, within the clinical sphere and with patients and colleagues. Among the hypotheses explaining this reduced scope of action is the fear of reprisal. Little is known about the prevalence of this fear and its complex dynamics. OBJECTIVE: The overall aim is to gain a better understanding of the complex dynamic process leading to clinical professionals' and managers' fear of reprisal in their change agent actions and senior administrators' and managers' determination of wrongdoing. The objectives are (1) to estimate the prevalence of fear of reprisal among clinical professionals and managers; (2) to identify the factors involved in (a) the emergence of this fear among clinical professionals and managers, and (b) the determination of wrongdoing by senior administrators and managers; (3) to describe the process of emergence of (a) the fear of reprisal among clinical professionals and managers, and (b) the determination of wrongdoing by senior administrators and managers; and (4) to document the legal and ethical issues associated with the factors identified (objective 2) and the processes described (objective 3). METHODS: Based on the Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect model, a 3-part sequential mixed methods design will include (1) a web-based survey (objective 1), (2) a qualitative grounded theory design (objectives 2 and 3), and (3) legal and ethical analysis (objective 4). Survey: 77,794 clinical professionals or clinical managers working in the Québec public HSS system will be contacted via email. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Grounded theory design: for each of the 3 types of participants (clinical professionals, clinical managers, and senior administrators and managers), a theoretical sample of 15 to 30 people will be selected via various strategies. Data will be independently analyzed using constant comparison process. Legal and ethical analysis: situations described by participants will be analyzed using, respectively, applicable legislation and jurisprudence and 2 ethical models. RESULTS: This ongoing study began in June 2022 and is scheduled for completion by March 2027. CONCLUSIONS: Instead of acting, fear of reprisal could induce clinical professionals to tolerate situations that run counter to their social justice values. To ensure they use their capacities for serving a population that is or could become vulnerable, it is important to know the prevalence of the fear of reprisal and gain a better understanding of its complex dynamics. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/48400.
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 | 0.082 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.011 |
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".