Programme de soins psychiatriques : Etude de l’expérience de jeunes patients par une méthode qualitative: Psychiatric care program: A qualitative study of the experience of young patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory care without consent is widely used, but it is controversial, and its effectiveness has not yet been proven. The patient experience remains largely unstudied in France, particularly that of young patients, yet their adherence to care in the early stages of the disease is complex and has an impact on their prognoses. The aim of this study is to investigate the experience of young patients undergoing a program of care (POC) in order to suggest ways of optimizing their care and to enrich the debate on the use of POCs. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 patients between ages 20 and 32, who were either undergoing a POC or had done so in the previous 5 years, followed by a semi-pragmatic phenomenological analysis of the resulting transcripts. RESULTS: (1) The outpatient experience with restraints is contradictory, ranging from deprivation and intrusion to support and protection. (2) The POC is portrayed as a framework for developing awareness of disorders and acceptance of care. (3) Patients report a lack of information about care with restraints, even to the point of being unaware of its existence. Patient-psychiatrist interactions within the POC are complicated by the restraints, but remain perceived as a care relationship. (4) They report constraints in their daily lives in connection to the POC, which can complicate professional involvement. CONCLUSION: The results support the importance of nurturing the therapeutic relationship within the POC and involving patients more in their care, starting with better information. They support the use of POCs as a temporary tool to be combined with work on adherence to treatment and support for social and professional reintegration. SPECIALTY: Psychiatry.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".