[PLAID-Care: Research into the reduced use of coercion in France]. / PLAID-Care : une recherche sur le moindre recours à la coercition en France.

The use of coercion is a common practice in psychiatry despite its deleterious effects and insufficient evidence of benefits. It is so deeply rooted that the mention of establishments that make little use of it arouses a form of incredulity. However, the history of psychiatry and the international literature provide numerous examples of a psychiatry that is hardly coercive and numerous experiences of a reduction in the use of seclusion and/or restraint in psychiatric facilities. Today, in France, there are also less coercive establishments, which, for example, do not use mechanical restraint, have all their units open, or have reduced their use of seclusion and restraint. With regard to the stated policy objectives of reducing the use of coercion, it is surprising that most of these facilities receive little attention. PLAID-Care research aims to contribute to the visibility and analysis of these institutions and the factors involved in the reduced use of coercion. While these factors have already been identified in the international literature, the research is based on the multiplication of disciplinary perspectives (nursing, sociology, anthropology, geography) and the mobilization of a multi-level analytical framework that allows us to embrace their multiplicity and better understand their articulation. The originality of the research also lies in its historical dimension, which allows us to understand, on the scale of an institution, how a policy and practices aiming at the least recourse emerge and are consolidated. The project timeline is divided in three tasks: firstly, an inventory of "low-coercion" facilities in France; secondly, we will select and research four traditionally "low-coercion" facilities in France; thirdly we will focus on recently emerged "low-coercion" practices. PLAID-Care aims to revitalize French research on this theme which to date has been relatively lagging behind the numerous international studies. It will bring together and articulate the knowledge, tools and forms of organization and collaboration that contribute to making a policy of lesser use of coercion operational.

Barriers and Expectations for Patients in Post-Osteoporotic Fracture Care in France: The EFFEL Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the relative importance of barriers to better secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures and of care expectations expressed by patients with osteoporotic fractures in France. METHODS: A qualitative exploration of potential barriers to care and expectations was undertaken through a systematic literature review and in-depth patients interviews. A list of 21 barriers and 21 expectations was identified. These were presented to 324 subjects with osteoporotic fractures, identified in a representative sample of the French population, in the form of best-worst scaling questionnaires. Patients rated the relative importance of the attributes, and arithmetic mean importance scores were calculated and ranked. A Bayesian hierarchical model was also performed to generate a relative importance score. Latent class analysis was performed to identify potential subgroups of patients with different response profiles. RESULTS: A total of 7 barriers were rated as the most important, relating to awareness of osteoporosis and coordination of care. The highest-ranked barrier, "my fracture is not related to osteoporosis," was significantly more important than all the others (mean importance score 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.56). A similar ranking of attributes was obtained with both the arithmetic and the Bayesian approach. For expectations, no clear hierarchy of attributes was identified. Latent class analysis discriminated 3 classes of respondents with significant differences in response profiles (the educated environmentalists, the unaware, and the victims of the system). CONCLUSIONS: Better quality of care of osteoporosis and effective secondary fracture prevention will require improvements in patient education, training of healthcare professionals, and coordination of care.

COVID-19 Health Crisis and Chronic Illness: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The acute nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has put a strain on health resources that are usually dedicated to chronic illnesses. Resulting changes in care practices and networks have had major repercussions on the experience of people with chronic disorders. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol of the Parcours, Associations, Réseau, Chronicité, Organisation, Usagers, Retour d'expérience, Soins (PARCOURS)-COVID study. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of reorganization of the health system on the usual care network of patients with chronic illness, which fosters and qualifies the quality and continuum of care provided. The first objective of this study is to document these patients' experiences through transformations and adaptations of their network, both in the practical dimension (ie, daily life and care) and subjective dimension (ie, psychosocial experience of illness and relationship to the health system). The second objective of the study is to understand and acknowledge these reorganizations during the COVID-19 lockdown and postlockdown periods. The third objective is to produce better adapted recommendations for patients with chronic illness and value their experience for the management of future health crisis. METHODS: The PARCOURS-COVID study is a qualitative and participatory research involving patient organizations as research partners and members of these organizations as part of the research team. Three group of chronic diseases have been selected regarding the specificities of the care network they mobilize: (1) cystic fibrosis and kidney disease, (2) hemophilia, and (3) mental health disorders. Four consecutive phases will be conducted, including (1) preparatory interviews with medical or associative actors of each pathology field; (2) in-depth individual interviews with patients of each pathology, analyzed using the qualitative method of thematic analysis; (3) results of both these phases will then be triangulated through interviews with members of each patient's care ecosystem; and finally, (4) focus groups will be organized to discuss the results with research participants (ie, representatives of chronic disease associations; patients; and actors of the medical, psychosocial, and family care network) in a research-action framework. RESULTS: The protocol study has undergone a peer review by the French National Research Agency's scientific committee and has been approved by the research ethical committee of the University of Paris (registration number: IRB 00012020-59, June 28, 2020). The project received funding from August 2020 through April 2021. Expected results will be disseminated in 2021 and 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will better inform the stakes of the current health crisis on the management of patients with chronic illness and, more broadly, any future crisis for a population deemed to be at risk. They will also improve health democracy by supporting better transferability of knowledge between the scientific and citizen communities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/28728.

[Free prescription practices at Ville-Evrard psychiatric hospital]. / Les pratiques de prescription des ordonnances de précarité à l’EPS de Ville-Évrard.

Free access to medicines is an important element in the implementation of health care access policies. Paradoxically, this aspect is rarely addressed in the literature on this subject. The Ville-Evrard psychiatric hospital introduced so-called "poverty prescriptions" allowing free drug dispensing, independently of specific PASS (Permanent Access to Health_ Care) systems. This paper presents the results of a study of all poverty prescriptions issued by the facility in 2011./t provides an analytical description of this system and shows that, despite the absence of strict controls, it was used relatively rarely.

Confinement and psychiatric care: a comparison between high-security units for prisoners and for difficult patients in France.

This paper examines the uncertain meaning of confinement in psychiatric care practices. Investigating the recent expansion of high-security units in French public psychiatry, for patients with dangerous behavior (units for difficult patients) and for suffering prisoners (specially equipped hospital units), we aim to understand psychiatry's use of confinement as part of its evolving mandate over suffering individuals with violent behavior. Although historically the epicenter of secure psychiatric care for dangerous individuals shifted from the asylum to the prison, a review of public reports and psychiatric literature demonstrates that psychiatrists' attempt to reclaim confinement as part of therapeutic practice underpinned the recent development of new units. Institutional-level analysis emphasizes psychiatry's enduring concern to subordinate social defense motives to a therapeutic rationale. Analyzing local professionals' justifications for these units in two emblematic hospitals, the paradoxical effects of a security-driven policy arise: they allowed the units' existence, yet prevented psychiatrists from defending a genuine therapeutic justification for confinement. Instead, professionals differentiate each unit's respective mission, underlining the concern for access to care and human dignity or defending the need for protection and safety from potentially dangerous patients. This process reveals the difficulty of defining confinement practices as care when autonomy is a core social value.

The patient's view: issues of theory and practice.

Almost all the knowledge now produced about psychiatry includes what is called "the patient's or client's perspective." This paper analyzes how this notion has been framed in the discourses on mental health over the last two decades, particularly in mental health research and in anthropology. The very concept of the "patient's perspective" is a social and historical construct. Despite its remarkable prevalence, the notion remains vague. Mental health research pictures it as a stable attribute of the individual. Anthropologists integrate the contextual nature of the patient view; but they still largely envision the psychiatric patient as a rational actor producing narratives based on common sense. However, in psychiatric practice, the client's perspective is not something the patient individually produces; it is rather shaped by and in a context. To explore this process, my research investigated interactions between staff and patients in a French community mental health center, and showed that the client's perspective is the result of a collective process. Further analysis demonstrates that eliciting or producing the patient's view is sometimes considered a therapeutic goal in itself, since being granted the status of a rational and narrative actor gives access to the most valued model of care, one that is based on partnership. Being an outcome that is negotiated between patients and care providers, the "patient's view" then becomes a new resource in mental health settings.