Examining Cross-sector Collaboration to Support Implementation of the Ontario Public Health Standards – School Health Standard Guideline
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada and beyond, schools have been an ideal setting to promote the health of children and youth, and the Comprehensive School Health approach has been an evidence-based way to engage in this work with a demonstrated return on investment. Ontario has established commitment to the Comprehensive School Health approach through provincial level policy, such as the Ontario Public Health Standards (OPHS). Through the OPHS School Health Standard, Public Health Units (PHUs) in Ontario are directed to work in partnership and collaboration with school boards and schools to develop a Comprehensive School Health promotion approach to promote the health of children and youth. Literature has identified that collaboration between the health and education sectors is an important facilitator of the Comprehensive School Health approach and related policy direction. Through a qualitative descriptive study this thesis project sought to examine the structures, practices, mechanisms, as well as facilitators and barriers to partnership and collaboration between Ontario PHUs and school boards. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) model was used to guide data collection and analysis. Data were collected from 13 PHUs through an electronic survey and document collection. Findings identified different provincial level policies that facilitate collaboration between PHUs and school boards (e.g. OPHS, PPMs); however, a barrier noted was the lack of one consistent or overarching provincial policy across the health and education sectors that supports or facilitates collaboration. At the local level, PHUs and school boards declare and demonstrate their partnership commitments in a variety of ways, from formal practices such as the development of partnership declarations and committees, to informal practices such as verbal agreements and ad hoc consultations. PHUs dedicate resources to collaboration with school boards which is dependent on PHU funding and capacity. A critical resource identified was human resources, with the School Health Manager and Public Health Nurses identified as two important roles that champion and facilitate collaborative practices with school boards and schools. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of partnership and collaboration, PHUs and school boards engage in a variety of informal and formal practices, such as the provision of ongoing feedback, to monitoring collective key performance indicators.
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 | 0,070 | 0,137 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| 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 ».