8 A Youthful Take on Community-Based Healthcare
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Teens face unique developmental risks that traditional healthcare often does not address. School- and community-based youth health clinics have taken variable approaches to this problem. There is a lack of evidence on the best way to provide care to this population and a lack of understanding on what youth feel would be helpful. This study explores diverse and at-risk youths’ perceptions of current healthcare access and desired services. Specifically, this study asks, “What community or school-based resources do high school students aged 14–18 perceive as valuable in improving their health?” With this information, physicians and other healthcare providers will be able to provide more pertinent and effective care. Study participants were high school students aged 14–18 inclusively. Participants were recruited with posters and community partners. Focus groups happened in respective schools and community organizations. Participants completed an intake-survey before taking part in focus groups. Survey data was compiled quantitatively and focus group transcripts underwent inductive thematic analysis. Four focus groups were conducted, each consisting of 4–8 youths (n=28). Participants identified primarily as female (79%), heterosexual (75%), and Caucasian (54%), with grade point averages between 60 and 79 (64%) and an average age of 16.7 years. Participants had only a general understanding of what health care professionals do and how to access them. Teens valued simplicity in seeking care, such as convenient location, short wait times, no appointments, and no financial cost. Teens wanted healthcare to be a personal experience. They wanted to see healthcare professionals they trust, and who they could relate to. Teens also wanted to see diverse staff in terms of gender and ethnicity, but generally want to see younger staff. They wanted to access a single source for a multitude of problems and did not want to be referred onward unnecessarily. Participants were concerned about the stressors associated with their developmental stage, social media, and bullying. Finally, teens wanted healthcare to be private and discretely accessible. A diverse group of youth have reaffirmed the importance of known health issues with new perspectives and identified new potential areas of focus. These ideas have actionable implications for accessibility, familiarity, comprehensiveness, mental health and confidentiality in the context of community adolescent health.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,004 |
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 ».