[Factors Influencing the Implementation of the Barometre Practice Model in the Field of Psychosocial Rehabilitation in Mental Health: Results from a Multiple Case Study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few years, several psychosocial rehabilitation strategies in mental health (PSR) have been developed to assist individuals living with severe mental health disorders (SMHDs) to fully exercise their social participation. However, the effectiveness of PSR strategies is often undermined as they remain fragmented, compartmentalized, and not cohesively integrated with one another. Furthermore, while there is scientific consensus and evidence on the usefulness and need for integrative PSR practice models, their effective implementation is not well understood and continues to be a marginal practice. Objective The main objective of this research is to identify and describe the contextual factors (enablers, barriers) influencing the implementation of the Baromètre Practice Model in different organisational contexts. The research also aims to co-produce recommendations with various stakeholders to improve the BPM and the strategies for its implementation. Methodology Drawing from the organizational participatory approach, a qualitative multiple case study was conducted with two French organization's housing individuals living with SMHD. Data collection involved multiple sources including participant observations, focus groups with accompanied persons, semi-structured dyad interviews with health professionals, and round-table discussions with a scientific committee. A theoretical synthesis combining the Capability and Personalised Care and Services approaches, and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), guided the iterative thematic analysis process. Results More than 40 contextual factors were identified and grouped into four main interrelated categories: organizational context and process; interprofessional practices; support practices; personal recovery process and maximum participation of people living with SMHDs. The interactions between these different factors led to the emergence of specific systemic dynamics: the contagion of experiences (positive or problematic); inertia, leading to a return to previous habits and modes of operation; and dynamization, which brings about a reinforcement of the motivation among actors to adopt and implement new practices. Conclusion This research provides a better understanding of the internal organizational contextual factors that influence the implementation of the Baromètre Practice Model. It also shows that it is possible to operationalise this model in various organisations offering care and services to individuals living with SMHDs. Research must continue to facilitate the implementation within health care and health service networks wishing to realize collaborative practices that promote the rights of individuals, their self-determination, and their personal recovery.
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 | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".