Partage d’informations et respect de la confidentialité : repères pour améliorer la qualité des services en santé mentale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Collaboration between family caregivers and professionals plays a critical role in the recovery of the person living with a mental health disorder. However, collaborative practices between family caregivers and professionals are impeded by issues relating to confidentiality, particularly in connection with bidirectional information sharing between the parties involved. In doing so, these issues affect the quality of mental health services. Method A qualitative study was conducted with 19 family caregivers and 19 mental health professionals from 2 Quebec regions[2] in order to identify issues related to information sharing and confidentiality from their combined perspective. The Photovoice method was used and individuals semi-directed interviews were conducted with the 38 participants. Results Confidentiality and the refusal of the person living with a mental health disorder to consent to share information remains important and current obstacles in mental health practises. The organization of mental health services should ensure better integration of family caregivers into care teams so that they can contribute to the person's recovery and thus receive all the support and information they need to exercise their role. This study shows that family caregivers have different information needs in order to carry out their role and accompany the person living with a mental health disorder, including the need for general and non-confidential information to better support the person. While respecting the fundamental rights and autonomy of the person, who is free to consent or not to sharing information concerning him or her, professionals and family caregivers can still interact and create an alliance that promotes collaboration and recovery. Conclusion This article offers benchmarks to facilitate dialogue among people living with a mental health disorder, family caregivers and professionals, and to support their actions around information-sharing and respect for confidentiality in mental health practises. Ultimately, the intention here is to foster collaborative practices that will help improve the quality of mental health services.
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 | 0.036 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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 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".