Measuring integration in “Integrated Youth Services” in Canada: Experiences with research and evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: There are various conceptual models of integration in youth health care and wellness but challenges exist when implementing these tools or surveys and putting them into practice. We will generate dialogue and share our experiences using these models in the context of embedded research and evaluation programs. The aim of these programs is to measure the extent to which services and systems are integrated, and linking this with an understanding of equity, access and outcomes for youth and caregivers. Audience: Integrated Youth Services (IYS) is a dynamic international movement that aims to build effective, youth-focused and integrated services for mental health, substance use, and related health and wellness needs. The audience for this Networking Session includes individuals and organizations working within the IYS service system as well as researchers and evaluators tackling issues of integration, embedded within health organizations. Engagement: There are several IYS organizations in Canada (e.g., Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario, Foundry, Huddle, Kickstand, Aire Ouverte), that offer integrated care experiences for young people and their caregivers delivered through province-wide networks of health and wellness centres. Our role as evaluators and researchers is to take a close look at organizational, functional, clinical and service levels and use evidence to support removing systemic barriers and create seamless care experiences for youth. Engaging youth, families, clinicians, and health care leaders is core to the design and delivery of the IYS model, and we are actively engaged in evaluating and researching our integration efforts with a view to continuous improvement and to sustaining change. Objectives: The goal of the session is to provide a space for researchers, evaluators, health system administrators and practitioners to come together to discuss common approaches to measuring and understanding integration within their organizations. Specifically, we aim to engage participants in sharing tools and practices, as well as discussing innovations and lessons learned from efforts in researching and evaluating integration, with a particular focus on approaches where research and evaluation are embedded within health service delivery contexts to close the gap between evidence, implementation and outcomes of care. Key question for international colleagues : What are your approaches to evaluating integration in embedded health system contexts? What tools and practices emerged? What worked and what didn’t? We will share insights from efforts in Canada to develop and implement research and evaluation tools to better understand how work and systems are integrated at IYS centres – and will invite international colleagues to share in dialogue to build on existing and emerging practices and innovations across organizations.
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 | 0,067 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,026 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».