Strengthening multi-sector community driven team-based approaches to develop and implement sustainable supports
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In rural communities in Canada, community-driven initiatives commonly emerge to fill the gaps in health outcomes, lack of resources, and fragmentation of available supports. These community-based solutions, often rely on a limited number of community champions and localized organizations. These organically tailored community- specific initiatives address the needs of the community of focus with consideration of the unique environmental context and often with finite human and financial resources available. There is much that academic and health systems leaders can do to support these community champions and localized organizations in the implementation and sustainability of programs, especially for the growing number of persons who are living with dementia in rural communities. We will present two case studies from two provinces which highlight the value and process to support community identified priorities to make impactful change. We then will challenge participants to consider how they can apply the strategies and resources to their own contexts as well as to identify potential challenges and mitigation strategies they may encounter. This workshop is tailored for any academic or health care professional interested in better supporting community driven initiatives. Approach: Introduction and Land Acknowledgement(7minutes) We will set the stage for aging in rural and northern communities in Canada and describe the growing needs of persons living with dementia. We will introduce the value of a community partnered approach to implementation in the context of enhancing individual and community wellbeing.Case Study -(9minutes) This Connecting People Community for Living Well initiative is a partnership between 5 community teams and the grant-funded team working to improve the wellbeing of those affected by dementia and the collaborative itself through multisector collaboration. This is achieved through the implementation of the 5 components of the Connecting People Community for Living Well model - Provincial support, Communities advancing local work, 0 guiding principles of the model, The Wellbeing Guide, and the Competency Framework. The community teams membership includes those with lived experience, service providers, service organizations, businesses, and local residents.This case study will showcase how data was gathered in partnership with the community teams through regular touch bases, focus groups, and completion of the Wellbeing guide. This information guided the development of a Lessons Learned document, infographics, competency framework, as well as the overall initiative evaluation report, including Social Return on Investment. Case Study 2-(9minutes) The Centre for Technology Adoption for Aging in the North(CTAAN), a national innovation hub built on a partnership between UNBC, Northern Health, and AGE-WELL, supports older adults to live well in by bridging the gap to make technologies more accessible. CTAAN focuses on testing, piloting, implementing, and promoting new and existing technology solutions tailored to support older adults and caregivers in northern and rural communities.This case study will showcase how CTAAN co-develops projects and establish partnerships to meet needs of our northern and rural stakeholders. We will provide an overview on our strategies to understand the individual or community specific challenges and needs, as well as the operations of the many stakeholders in our communities. We will then share how we co-develop projects with the fundamental principle of the inclusion of all stakeholders.Workshop Activity(35minutes)-Attendees will be put in small groups and be provided the wellbeing guide to review and reflect on. Each group will brainstorm potential barriers/challenges and then match these to potential mitigation strategies/resources needed to address them.(20minutes) Next, each group will share back examples to the larger groups. We will also allow opportunity for large group discussion, comments, and questions.(0minutes)We will have 5 minutes for concluding remarks.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».