A Community-Based Approach to Assessing the Success of London, Ontario’s Whole of Community System Response to Health and Homelessness
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Homelessness, and it’s associated challenges, have reached crisis levels across Canada and in many places around the world. The lack of safe, supportive, and affordable housing has led to unprecedented numbers of people experiencing homelessness and housing precarity. Coupled with under-resourced social support services and an over-stretched healthcare system, this has led to avoidable death and suffering. In London, Ontario, Canada local protests by providers and caring citizens in July 2022 resulted in development of a Whole of Community System Response to Health and Homelessness that is garnering national and international interest. As part of this response, partners have come together to establish a coordinated research/evaluation strategy. Objective: To describe the methods used to establish a coordinated community-based approach to evaluation of our Health and Homelessness plan and share early findings Methods: As part of the Whole of Community System Response to Health and Homelessness, a System Foundations table was formed with mandates to inform 1) evaluation/research 2) foundational processes and 3) policy development. Table membership was created via open call to all 70+ partner organizations. Evaluation framework development began with defining core values (including a trauma- and violence-informed, anti-oppressive and equity-promoting approach) and adopting commonly-used evaluation strategies. An open call to local researchers, analysts, decision support, and evaluation experts was used to form 9 ‘evaluation teams’ and 1 ‘evaluation oversight’ team. A University-Community Research Centre (the Centre for Research on Health Equity and Social Inclusion) was nominated to provide arms’ length coordination and facilitation of these activities. Results: The emerging oversight team will serve as a neutral facilitator to support review of meeting documents, attend other working group meetings, and engage community to identify key questions. The Quintuple Aim of Health System Improvement and Donabedian’s Triad were endorsed as the evaluation framework core along with a commitment to mixed-methods approaches and 'Now, Next, Later' framework to inform timing of evaluation and research deliverables. Nine evaluation teams are, therefore, exploring 1) outcomes and experiences within London’s highest-need homeless; 2) outcomes and experiences within London’s otherwise homeless and precariously housed population; 3) outcomes and experiences within London’s general population; 4) experiences of the workforce; 5) health equity; 6) cost of care; 7) processes; 8) structures; 9) overall project review. Facilitated by the Oversight team, evaluation/research relevant questions will be prioritized and brought to the appropriate Evaluate Teams who will coordinate appropriate processes for answering them now and over time to track collective impact. Research and evaluation teams will leverage existing resources wherever possible and be purposefully built represent different disciplines, traditions and backgrounds to ensure a wholistic research and evaluation approach (including indigenous research, evaluation, and pedagogy). Care will be taken to reflect the complexity of the system and ensure fairness and equity in all research activities. Conclusion: London’s Whole of Community System Response to Health and Homelessness is, we understand, a unique strategy requiring equally unique evaluation and research. This presentation aims to describe how this evaluation approach is being designed and implemented, and share early findings as available.
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 | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».