95 Child Health Promotion Through Community Educational Sessions in an Urban Inuit Community: A Needs Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction/Background Canadian Inuit children experience significant health disparities compared to their non-Inuit counterparts. Despite almost one-fifth of Canadian Inuit living in urban centres, few studies have explored their health needs. Current literature surveying Indigenous leaders identifies the need for improved access to child health and parenting knowledge. Community-based initiatives have been shown to improve Indigenous maternal and child health outcomes. Our study aimed to describe urban Inuit parents’ perspectives on accessing child health knowledge to guide development of Inuit-specific health knowledge-sharing initiatives. Objectives Design/Methods In conjunction with community partners, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment through focus groups at an urban-situated organization that provides cultural, educational, and social services to Inuit children and families. Participants were parents and caregivers of Inuit children. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo software. Inductive coding was used to identify themes related to participants’ sources of health knowledge, barriers and facilitators to accessing health knowledge, and health topics that participants hoped to learn more about. Results Twenty-four individuals participated in four focus groups, of which twenty-one (88%) identified as Inuit. While participants represented a range of ages (19-40 years), most participants (42%) were 31-40 years old. The majority of participants (88%) identified as female. Participants had lived a median of 15 years in an urban setting (interquartile range 10-23). Seventeen participants (71%) cared for children aged 5 or younger. The main sources of health knowledge reported were Indigenous-focused services, online resources, telehealth and social networks (e.g. family and peers). The most notable barrier to accessing child health information was cultural differences (i.e. lifestyle and parenting practices). Discrimination and challenges with systems navigation also emerged as themes. Key health topics of interest included common childhood complaints (e.g. infections and immunizations), infant care, nutrition, parenting and development, mental health, and sexual education for adolescents. Preferred modes of child health information delivery were in-person sessions, pamphlets, and online videos with preferences for both health care providers and Inuit Elders as facilitators. Key access factors included Inuit language/translation, convenience of location, transportation, scheduling, and presence of food and childcare. Conclusion Our results reveal important factors affecting access to child health knowledge among Inuit families in a large urban setting, as well as key child health topics of interest to this population. Informed by these findings and with help from our community partners, we are co-developing child health knowledge-sharing initiatives specific to the needs of the Inuit community in our region.
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 | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».