MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4229812640 · doi:10.1353/cpr.2014.0048

Community-Based Research in Action: Tales From the Ktunaxa Community Learning Centres Project

2014· article· en· W4229812640 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth A. Stacy, Katherine Wisener, Yolanda Liman, Olga Beznosova, Helen Novak Lauscher, Kendall Ho, Sandra Jarvis-Selinger

Notice bibliographique

RevueProgress in community health partnerships · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAction researchSociologyPublic relationsParticipatory action researchNegotiationCommunity healthCommunity engagementPedagogyNursingPolitical scienceMedicinePublic healthSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Community-Based Research in Action:Tales From the Ktunaxa Community Learning Centres Project Elizabeth Stacy, MA, Katherine Wisener, MA, Yolanda Liman, MA, Olga Beznosova, PhD, Helen Novak Lauscher, PhD, Kendall Ho, MD, FRCPC, and Sandra Jarvis-Selinger, PhD What Is the Purpose of This Study? • To chronicle and evaluate the community-based research process used in the development of the Community Learning Centres (CLCs) in rural Canadian communities, specifically Aboriginal communities. In particular, this study considers culturally and geographically relevant health information while focusing on the process of building relationships among the partners as well as the value and sustainability of the CLC model. What Is the Problem? • Many rural Canadian communities, especially Aboriginal communities, have inadequate access to geographical or socially relevant health information, which has detrimental impacts on community members’ health and well-being. • Little research exists on implementing and evaluating CLCs in Aboriginal communities as a way of addressing the lack of culturally and geographically suitable health and social service information. What Are the Findings? • The analysis of interviews revealed four themes: People with different cultural backgrounds finding ways to work together, project employees taking ownership over and a lead in the project’s success, community leads who coordinated CLCs gaining technical and research skills, and the university team learning about collaborative research in Aboriginal communities. • Participants identified several process challenges, including working out how to run the project cooperatively, negotiating different working styles, and hiring people who were committed to the success of the project. • Having a CLC in the community made it possible for community members to learn about health information and further the progress of other community initiatives. Who Should Care Most? • Health care practitioners, including nursing, medical, and allied health and social service professionals. • Rural community development officers and/or researchers. • Aboriginal health care programs. • Aboriginal and Canadian Governments. [End Page 261] Recommendations for Action • Meet all partners “where they are” in building trusting relationships and adapting research methods to fit the context and strengths of the project. • Include a joint university–community training session or facilitated discussion to become familiar with both university and community protocols to initiate the process of comparing and contrasting community and post-secondary procedures. In addition, create strategies for working through differences, break project into small goals.. • Consider how technological access provided by the CLCs will increase capacity for learning and collective initiatives in the community, as well as the skills, knowledge, and perceived self-efficacy of the community research leads. As such, plan for additional support services, such as information technology training, as capacity and confidence increases in communities. • Incorporate a hiring rubric matrix where the emphasis is placed on commitment to the project objectives to effectively meet different working styles and levels. • Plan for turnover in community research staff by including a work plan for alternative research members to maintain responsibility for community-based features of the project. [End Page 262] Elizabeth Stacy, Katherine Wisener, Yolanda Liman, Olga Beznosova, Helen Novak Lauscher, Kendall Ho, and Sandra Jarvis-Selinger University of British Columbia Copyright © 2014 The Johns Hopkins University Press

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,116
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,372
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1160,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0220,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,037
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,803
Tête enseignante GPT0,634
Écart entre enseignants0,169 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProgress in community health partnershipsMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207