Ségolène de Rouffignac, Naji Mokaddem, Robin Treutens, Maud Robert, Bernard Millette, Paul Grand'Maison, Josette Castel, Janie Giard, Maxime Sasseville, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu
{"title":"Pratiquer la responsabilité sociale en santé : de la théorie à la pratique. Une étude Delphi internationale.","authors":"Ségolène de Rouffignac, Naji Mokaddem, Robin Treutens, Maud Robert, Bernard Millette, Paul Grand'Maison, Josette Castel, Janie Giard, Maxime Sasseville, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health professionals’ social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.</p><p><strong>Purpose of the research: </strong>This study, conducted by the Réseau International Francophone pour la Responsabilité Sociale en Santé (RIFRESS), aims to develop a consensus on the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health from the perspective of experts in medical education. Its findings are intended to inform the creation of a skills profile. A three-round Delphi consensus method was used, with an open first round and closed second and third rounds. Mesydel software was used to organize the process and to do the qualitative analysis of the first round. SPSS was used for consensus analysis for rounds 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four experts responded to the study. During the first round, 62 codes emerged, grouped into 13 themes. From the initial analysis, 40 items were submitted for the Delphi round 2. Of these 40 items, 23 came out consensual after the second round, as did 13 of the 18 resubmitted items after the third. Examples of items that emerged as consensual are eco-responsibility, advocacy, defense of the common good, critical analysis of practice, and collaborative leadership.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study represents a much-needed effort to concretely define the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health. Local context must be taken into account when using these findings. They can help to train tomorrow’s doctors to better meet the priority health needs of society in a profoundly changing world.</p>","PeriodicalId":49575,"journal":{"name":"Sante Publique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sante Publique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Health professionals’ social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.
Purpose of the research: This study, conducted by the Réseau International Francophone pour la Responsabilité Sociale en Santé (RIFRESS), aims to develop a consensus on the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health from the perspective of experts in medical education. Its findings are intended to inform the creation of a skills profile. A three-round Delphi consensus method was used, with an open first round and closed second and third rounds. Mesydel software was used to organize the process and to do the qualitative analysis of the first round. SPSS was used for consensus analysis for rounds 2 and 3.
Results: Thirty-four experts responded to the study. During the first round, 62 codes emerged, grouped into 13 themes. From the initial analysis, 40 items were submitted for the Delphi round 2. Of these 40 items, 23 came out consensual after the second round, as did 13 of the 18 resubmitted items after the third. Examples of items that emerged as consensual are eco-responsibility, advocacy, defense of the common good, critical analysis of practice, and collaborative leadership.
Conclusions: The present study represents a much-needed effort to concretely define the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health. Local context must be taken into account when using these findings. They can help to train tomorrow’s doctors to better meet the priority health needs of society in a profoundly changing world.
期刊介绍:
La revue Santé Publique s’adresse à l’ensemble des acteurs de santé publique qu’ils soient décideurs,
professionnels de santé, acteurs de terrain, chercheurs, enseignants ou formateurs, etc. Elle publie
des travaux de recherche, des évaluations, des analyses d’action, des réflexions sur des interventions
de santé, des opinions, relevant des champs de la santé publique et de l’analyse des services de
soins, des sciences sociales et de l’action sociale.
Santé publique est une revue à comité de lecture, multidisciplinaire et généraliste, qui publie sur
l’ensemble des thèmes de la santé publique parmi lesquels : accès et recours aux soins, déterminants
et inégalités sociales de santé, prévention, éducation pour la santé, promotion de la santé,
organisation des soins, environnement, formation des professionnels de santé, nutrition, politiques
de santé, pratiques professionnelles, qualité des soins, gestion des risques sanitaires, représentation
et santé perçue, santé scolaire, santé et travail, systèmes de santé, systèmes d’information, veille
sanitaire, déterminants de la consommation de soins, organisation et économie des différents
secteurs de production de soins (hôpital, médicament, etc.), évaluation médico-économique
d’activités de soins ou de prévention et de programmes de santé, planification des ressources,
politiques de régulation et de financement, etc