MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4413358383 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24068

Establishing a Coordinated Crisis Continuum Across the Lifespan in Halton, Ontario Canada

2025· article· en· W4413358383 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Wilkie, Alisha Matte, Kirsten Dougherty, Rashaad Vahed, Dayna Taylor-Weir

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueDisaster Response and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContinuum of careCrisis responsePolitical sciencePublic relationsHealth careEconomicsEconomic growth

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: The Region of Halton current crisis continuum is experiencing similar challenges as many others, such as confusing and broken pathways, redundancies in services, organizational siloes, and poor transitions between services. With increasing needs for higher acuity care and crisis interventions in the community, these issues continue to exacerbate the difficulties faced the difficulties faced by community members of all ages seeking crisis support.To address this need for a comprehensive crisis response across the lifespan, a coalition of 4 organizations spanning community mental health, substance use, hospitals, first responders, family and patient advisory, housing, Ontario Health, Community Safety and Wellbeing, and Ontario Health Teams formed the Halton Crisis Working Group. Through collaborative efforts this group aims to identify and address the most pressing needs in crisis care within the region by establishing a coordinated crisis continuum that supports individuals across the lifespan. Approach: To accomplish this, a thorough examination of the region's current crisis care system was conducted. This involved mapping local crisis assets and pathways across child, youth, adult and older adult sectors and collecting organization data to understand current service use and capacity. Extensive engagement was also conducted with 22 different community stakeholders to assess current strengths, opportunities, and future vision. Additionally, a comprehensive population needs assessment, environmental scan of local, regional and provincial priorities, a review of global best practices and a scan of equitable model and equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility (EDIA) principles were undertaken. Throughout this process, working group members actively participated in workshops to validate and discuss findings.At the culmination of these discovery activities, an in-person co-design workshop was organized, bringing together all working group members to review and evaluate current system needs, challenges, and opportunities. To guide this discussion, a prioritization framework was developed, utilizing criteria such as community need, readiness, support, and potential impact to determine top priorities to advance. Results: The top priority identified by both service providers and clients was to simplify, optimize, and align existing crisis services. This would make the system easier for clients to access, navigate, and understand. This streamlined system would reduce confusion, eliminate the need to retell their stories multiple times, and ensure they receive timely and appropriate support when in crisis.The second priority was to close gaps in care, particularly for those consistently underserved by the current system. Addressing these gaps would ensure that all clients, regardless of their circumstances, have equitable access to crisis services tailored to their unique needs and challenges. These priorities would translate into a more user-friendly, inclusive, and responsive crisis continuum. Implications: While this work is still underway, the process of collective engagement has already yielded significant implications. Notably, it has fostered strengthened relationships, built trust, and cultivated a shared sense of purpose across the region's service providers.The collective planning and action undertaken thus far have enabled the successful identification of priorities and generated substantial momentum, propelling the initiative forward. The collaborative is now well-positioned to embark on the next critical phase - developing and implementing actionable strategies to bring these priorities to fruition.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,117
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,849

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0190,003
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0020,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,352 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Integrated CareMême sujetDisaster Response and ManagementTravaux en français237 207