A participatory process to support the implementation of integrated youth services in Quebec
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Integrated youth services (IYS) have been implemented worldwide for decades, and numerous studies have demonstrated their ability to more appropriately meet the needs of young people (Bassilios et al., 207; Bentayeb et al., 2022a; Callaly et al., 2009; Patulny et al., 203; Rickwood et al., 205). In Quebec, since 208, the Ministry of Health and Social Services and its partners have been working to establish IYS to better meet the needs of young people. This initiative - the Aire Ouverte program - is currently being implemented throughout the province. In addition to engaging in demonstration sites to ensure the suitability of this model in the Quebec context (Bentayeb et al., 2022b; Touati et al., 2024), managers and practitioners required support for the local implementation of these IYS. Thus, our study proposes a mixed systematic literature review supported by consultation with youth and clinicians and a deliberative process with clinicians and decision makers (Bentayeb et al., 2022a). Approach: This presentation outlines a participatory process to support the implementation of integrated youth services[GU] based on an international mixed systematic literature review (Creswell et al., 20) supported by consultation with youth, clinicians and decision makers (Bentayeb et al., 2022a). Scientific as well as grey literature was at the core of the literature review - 26 references were finally included in the study. Convergent synthesis designs were conducted, and the resulting data was analyzed in parallel. The literature review showed the relevance and efficacy of IYS to better support youth holistic wellbeing in terms of mental and physical health.The results of the literature review were then contextualized with stakeholders from Quebec: 2 youth initially completed a questionnaire virtually and in person and were then invited to take part in a debate on two open questions; 4 clinicians working with youth in public services also answered an online questionnaire about the main components that can improve the well-being and service trajectory of youth identified in the systematic literature review. These findings as well as initial recommendations from the literature review were finally discussed with members of a deliberative committee made up of decision-makers and managers in youth mental health and global health public services, community organizations and the Ministry of Health and Social Services. Results: The literature review and consultation of stakeholders led to the identification of nine key components for a successful implementation of IYS network for youth aged 2 to 25 years old (Bentayeb et al., 2022): ) integrated services and spaces and youth-friendly spaces; 2) services adapted to the reality of youth; 3) promotion of services and brand image; 4) collaboration and partnership; 5) continuous service path; 6) place for youth, parents and relatives; 7) integrated and cross-sectoral governance; 8) recurrent funding and reinvented accountability; 9) integrated research and evaluation approach. These findings have since then informed the large-scale implementation of IYS Aire Ouverte across the province of Quebec, and led to the other projects aiming at better supporting youth and their family. The robustness of these findings and their implementation in practice is reinforced by the participatory component of the process, notably the deliberative committee which addressed the feasibility and relevance of the recommendations that came out of the literature review as well as consultation with youth and clinicians. Implications: This presentation aims to increase participants knowledge about the key components of a successful participatory process supporting the implementation of IYS in collaboration with youth as well as clinicians and decision makers. It also gives participants insights on the ways researchers can bridge findings from international scientific and grey literature with consultation of stakeholders - youth, clinicians supporting them and decision-makers.
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 | 0,133 | 0,077 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».