Driving Equity at a Community Level: Case Studies of Community-Based Peer-Delivered Health-Care Services and Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionThe Wellesley Institute, based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada is a non-profit and non-partisan research and policy institute focused on developing research and community-based policy solutions to problems of urban and disparities. Wellesley commissioned this Case Study Series, Driving Equity at a Community Level: Case Studies of Community- Based Peer-Delivered Health-Care Services and Programs, in 2010 to complement a Literature Review it conducted, Potential of Community-Based Peer-Delivered Healthcare Services and Programs (1). The series was envisioned in several phases, with Phase 1 focusing on peer workers in programs and services located in Greater Toronto Area (GTA).Interest in peer workers, and evidence of their practice and its outcomes among and social service and their clients in Greater Toronto Area, developed out of a series of Health Equity Roundtables facilitated by The Wellesley Institute in 2009. These Roundtables brought together about 30 service providers, policymakers, and community- and academic-based researchers as informants to create an informal best practices and advocacy network in GTA around disparities or inequities, socio- economic determinants of health, promising directions and gaps, and enablers and barriers to change.The emerging philosophy and practice of peer workers was one area of discussion. At suggestion of Roundtables, The Wellesley Institute collaboratively developed this project to dig deeper into how and why peer workers provide and social services in GTA through a parallel and complementary Literature Review/Case Study approach that looks at three key lines of experiential inquiry: how peer-based program or service works, why it works (facilitators, success conditions or best practices), and what challenges working with this model presents (barriers). This paper reports on Phase 1 of project.Two notes about terms and definitions used in this project. Peer is a flexible term as currently used in both literature and in practice. This project adopts definition suggested by literature: the term 'peer' is defined loosely as someone from being served. Such a loose definition allows for varying levels of expertise, from laypersons to professionals, so long as person possesses identifying traits of community (1). Similarly, when speaking of community, literature suggests that:'Community' refers to a group of people sharing identifying common traits such as ethnicity, race, religion, location or neighbourhood, sexual orientation, past or present concern, educational status, age, lifestyle, and life-stage. To be community-based, a service or program must take place as close to as possible (1).Where necessary, this paper refers to broader term health and social service providers to reflect reality that and social service sectors do cross over, both in policy and practice; and that many service are, in fact, multi-service agencies that work across sectors, disciplines and areas of practice. Several of eight specific programs or services studied are multi-service agencies.A comment about project's scope. The terms of reference were highly focused for several reasons. The project had limited resources to access and collect data among communities of practice whose existence, location, size and client reach were relatively unknown among and social service in GTA, or known primarily through ever-changing networks of community-based contacts.As a result, Phase 1 was envisioned as a preliminary, exploratory or pilot research project, a starting-point to explore discussions, promising directions and recommendations from Health Equity Roundtables and suggest next steps for Phase 2. The case study findings reported in this paper are therefore based on data gathered from a relatively small number, eight, of community-based peer- delivered healthcare services and programs that constitute field work component of project. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».