Résumés
Résumé
Malgré la promotion et la valorisation des données probantes dans les domaines de la santé et des services sociaux, l’utilisation d’outils d’évaluation systématique en intervention sociale demeure un sujet de recherche peu exploré au Québec. Le présent article s’intéresse aux enjeux entourant l’implantation et l’utilisation d’un outil d’évaluation systématique en contexte d’intervention en protection de la jeunesse, le Protocole d’évaluation familiale (PEF). À partir des points de vue de 37 acteurs directement concernés par l’utilisation de ce protocole (intervenants, gestionnaires et familles), cette étude se penche plus spécifiquement sur les enjeux qui interviennent dans le processus d’implantation de l’outil et qui influencent son utilisation. Les résultats indiquent que le contexte organisationnel, les propriétés des questionnaires, les caractéristiques des acteurs, ainsi que les perceptions de ces derniers à l’égard de la pertinence clinique de l’outil sont les principaux facteurs soulevés par les participants pour expliquer les conditions d’implantation et le niveau d’utilisation du PEF.
Mots-clés :
- Protection de la jeunesse,
- évaluation systématique,
- évaluation familiale,
- outil d’évaluation standardisé
Abstract
Despite the promotion and development of evidence based practices in the health and social services fields, the use of standardized assessment measurements in social intervention remains a subject that has been little studied in the province of Quebec. This article focuses on at the issues surrounding the implementation and use of a standardized assessment measurements in the context of child protection interventions, the Family assessment protocol (FAP). From the perspective of 37 stakeholders directly concerned by the use of this protocol (child welfare workers, managers and families), this study examines the challenges involved in the tool implementation process and which influence the use of it. The results indicate that the organizational context, the questionnaires properties, the characteristics of the stakeholders, as well as the perception of the measurement clinical relevance are the main factors raised by the participants to explain the implantation conditions and the level of FAP usage.
Keywords:
- Child welfare,
- Systematic assessment,
- Family assessment,
- Standardized assessment measurement
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Remerciements
Les auteures tiennent à remercier l’implication de Robert Pauzé pour sa lecture attentive de l’article et pour son support tout au long du projet d’évaluation.
Bibliographie
- Alain, M. et Rousseau, M. (2014). Recourir aux données probantes dans l’intervention psychosociale : passage obligé ou effet de mode? La pratique en mouvement, 7,14-15.
- Anderson, D. A. et Paulosky, C. A. (2004). A survey of the use of assessment instruments by eating disorder professionals in clinical practice. Eating and Weight Disorders, 9, 238–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF03325075
- Batty, M. J., Moldavsky, M., Foroushani, P. S., Pass, S., Marriott, M., Sayal, K. et Hollis, C. (2013). Implementing routine outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services: From present to future practice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18(2), 82-87. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1475-3588.2012.00658.x
- Bewick, B. M., Trusler, K., Mullin, T., Grant, S. et Mothersole, G. (2006). Routine outcome measurement completion rates of the CORE-OM in primary care psychological therapies and counselling. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 6(1), 33-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733140600581432
- Bickman, L., Rosof-Williams, J., Salzer, M. S., Summerfelt, W. T., Wilson, S. J. et Karver, M. S. (2000). What information do clinicians value for monitoring adolescent client progress and outcomes? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(1), 70-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028. 31.1.70
- Boswell, J. F., Kraus, D. R., Miller, S. D. et Lambert, M. J. (2015). Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychotherapy Research, 25(1), 6-19.
- Bilsker, D. et Goldner, E. M. (2002). Routine outcome measurement by mental health-care providers: Is it worth. The Lancet, 360(9346), 1689-1690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11610-2
- Braun, V. et Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706 qp063oa
- Coombs, T., Stapley, K. et Pirkis, J. (2011). The multiple uses of routine mental health outcome measures in Australia and New Zealand: Experiences from the field. Australasian Psychiatry, 19(3), 247-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10398562.2011.562507
- Favez, N. (2010). L’examen clinique de la famille : Modèles et instruments d’évaluation. Wavre, Belgique: Édition Mardaga.
- Fereday, J. et Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
- Garland, A. F., Kruse, M. et Aarons, G. A. (2003). Clinicians and outcome measurement: What’s the use? The Journal of Behavioral Health Services et Research, 30, 393–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF02287427
- Gilbody, S. M., House, A. O., et Sheldon, T. A. (2002). Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcomes measures: National survey. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 101–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/ bjp.180.2.101
- Hall, C. L., Moldavsky, M., Taylor, J., Sayal, K., Marriott, M., Batty, M. J., ... et Hollis, C. (2014). Implementation of routine outcome measurement in child and adolescent mental health services in the United Kingdom: a critical perspective. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(4), 239-242.
- Hatfield, D. R. et Ogles, B. M. (2004). The Use of Outcome Measures by Psychologists in Clinical Practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(5), 485–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.5.485
- Hatfield, D. R. et Ogles, B. M. (2007). Why some clinicians use outcome measures and others do not. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34(3), 283-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-006-0110-y
- Jensen-Doss, A. et Hamilton, J. (2005). Evidence-based diagnosis: Incorpora-ting diagnostic instruments into clinical practice. Journal of the American Academy of Child et Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(9), 947-952.
- Jensen-Doss, A. et Hawley, K. M. (2010). Understanding barriers to evidence-based assessment: Clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(6), 885-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2010.517169
- Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Assessment and evaluation in clinical practice. In C. D. Goodheart, A. E. Kazdin et R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapy: Where practice and research meet (pp. 153-177). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
- Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Systematic evaluation to improve the quality of patient care: From Hope to hopeful. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 3(4), 37-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.14713/pcsp.v3i4.911
- Lakeman, R. (2004). Standardized routine outcome measurement: Pot holes in the road to recovery. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 13(4), 210-215. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1445-8330.2004.00336.x
- Lyon, A. R., Dorsey, S., Pullmann, M., Silbaugh-Cowdin, J. et Berliner, L. (2015). Clinician use of standardized assessments following a common elements psychotherapy training and consultation program. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42, 47–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0543-7
- Maden, A. (2003). Standardized risk assessment: Why all the fuss? Psychiatric Bulletin, 27(6), 201-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/pb.27.6.201
- Martin, A.-M., Fishman, R. et Baxter, L. (2011). Practitioners’ attitudes towards the use of standardized diagnostic assessment in routine practice: A qualitative study in two Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(3), 407–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1359104510366284
- Mash, E. J. et Hunsley, J. (2005). Evidence-Based Assessment of Child and Adolescent Disorders: Issues and Challenges. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(3), 362-379. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/s15374424jccp3403_1
- McHugh, R. K. et Barlow, D. H. (2010). The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. A review of current efforts. American Psychologist, 65, 73–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018121
- McKay, R. et Coombs, T. (2012). An exploration of the ability of routine outcome measurement to represent clinically meaningful information regarding individual consumers. Australasian Psychiatry, 20(5), 433-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1039856212458813
- McKay, R., Coombs, T. et Pirkis, J. (2012). A framework for exploring the potential of routine outcome measurement to improve mental health care. Australasian Psychiatry, 20(2), 127-133
- Meehan, T., McCombes, S., Hatzipetrou, L. et Catchpoole, R. (2006). Introduction of routine outcome measures: Staff reactions and issues for consideration. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 13(5), 581-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2006.00985.x
- Mellor-Clark, J., Cross, S., Macdonald, J. et Skjulsvik, T. (2016). Leading horses to water: Lessons from a decade of helping psychological therapy services use routine outcome measurement to improve practice. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(3), 279-285
- Moran, P., Kelesidi, K., Guglani, S., Davidson, S. et Ford, T. (2012). What do parents and carers think about routine outcome measures and their use? A focus group study of CAMHS attenders. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(1), 65-69
- Pauzé, R., Cook-Darzens, S., Villeneuve, M.-P., Chateauneuf, D., Petitpas, J. et Côté, J. (2017). Évaluation du fonctionnement familial : proposition d’un modèle intégratif pour soutenir la pratique clinique et la recherche, Thérapie familiale 38(3), 175-208
- Reeves, K., Charter, E. et Ford, T. (2015). Measurement Issues: Is standardized diagnostic assessment feasible as an adjunct to clinical practice? A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 21(1), 51-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/camh. 12089
- Rittner, B. et Wodarski, J. S. (1995). Clinical assessment instruments in the treatment of child abuse and neglect. Early Child Development and Care, 106, 43-58. http://dx.doi.org /10.1080/0300443951060106
- Valenstein, M., Goldman, B., Adler, D. A., Hackman, A., Berlant, J., Oslin, D. W., . . . Sonis, W. A. (2009). Implementing standardized assessments in clinical care: Now’s the time. Psychiatric Services, 60(10), 1372-1375. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1176/appi.ps.60.10.1372
- Wodarski, J. S. (2015). Assessment methods. In J. S. Wodarski, M. J. Holosko, et M. D. Feit (Eds.), Evidence-informed assessment and practice in child welfare (pp. 99-121). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12045-4_7
- Youn, S. J., Kraus, D. R. et Castonguay, L. G. (2012). The treatment outcome package: Facilitating practice and clinically relevant research. Psychotherapy, 49(2), 115.
- Zimmerman, M. et McGlinchey, J. B. (2008). Why don’t psychiatrists use scales to measure outcome when treating depressed patients? The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1916-1919.