Implementation of a supported employment and education program in Integrated Youth Service settings across Canada: A multi-site case study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Youth mental health in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened due to prolonged isolation, reduced access to resources, and disruptions to education and employment. To enhance service delivery for this population and in light of a growing body of work supporting integrated approaches in Canada, the Lift/Futur en tête project implemented an evidence-based supported employment and education program, Individual Placement and Support (IPS), into pre-existing Integrated Youth Service (IYS) networks. The purpose of this study is to produce early findings of the project by documenting experiences of service providers. Methods: We conducted a multi-site case study to examine similarities and differences among 12 participating sites across Canada using data from presentations at the Lift/Futur en tête Summit held in Toronto in the spring of 2023. Twelve sites across five Canadian provinces were included. Participating organizations include AOM [the Acadian Peninsula, Alberta, centre local de services communautaires Dorval-Lachine-LaSalle (DLL)/Ouest de l’Ile de Montréal], RIPAJ: Réseau d’Intervention de Proximité Auprès des Jeunes de la rue (RIPAJ)], Foundry (Campbell River, Comox Valley, Kelowna, Penticton), and YWHO (Haliburton, Niagara Region, North Simcoe, Central Toronto). Diverse in size and geographic make-up, each site has unique features with tailored services to meet the needs of the communities they serve. This study was conducted as a follow-up to the Local Journeys presentations at the Lift/Futur en tête Summit in the spring of 2023. The Local Journeys presentations were a time for organizations to briefly (in roughly 10 minutes) introduce their IPS team; describe the context they serve; share challenges, success stories, and unique features of implementation; and describe what worked or did not work when implementing the IPS model in their community. Data were gathered from PowerPoints, including images and videos in which sites selected pertinent data to share. Detailed notes were taken by several members of the research team for the duration of each presentation. Notes were translated if necessary and amalgamated to ensure accuracy and completeness. To identify differences and similarities across sites, we followed standard procedure for multi-site case study analysis. We began with a within-case analysis, in which data from each site were examined in-depth one-by-one to become familiar with the features unique to that site and identify pertinent information as expressed by the service providers. We then conducted a cross-case search of patterns between sites to determine instances of overlap and ascertain key areas of need. Contextualized by community size, findings are reported in categories of barriers, facilitators, and innovation. Results: Findings identified notable barriers, facilitators, and innovation strategies, with commonalities categorized by community size (small, medium, large). Conclusions: Future policy in this area should consider community needs when implementing the IPS model in IYS networks. Attention should be given to identifying solutions to transportation barriers in rural regions, working with Indigenous community members to ensure elements of the IPS model are consistent with Indigenous values and principles, working with clients with complex needs with attention to the social determinants of health (SDoH), and implementing IPS in virtual settings.
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 | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».