Exploring facilitators and barriers to individual and organizational level capacity building: outcomes of participation in a community priority setting workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores facilitators and barriers to individual and organizational capacity to address priority strategies for community-level chronic disease prevention. Interviews were conducted with a group of participants who previously participated in a community priority-setting workshop held in two Alberta communities. The goal of the workshop was to bring together key community stakeholders to collaboratively identify action strategies for preventing chronic diseases in their communities. While capacity building was not the specific aim of the workshop, it could be considered an unintended byproduct of bringing together community representatives around a specific issue. One purpose of this study was to examine the participants' capacity to take action on the priority strategies identified at the workshop. Eleven one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with workshop participants to examine facilitators and barriers to individual and organizational level capacity building. Findings suggest that there were several barriers identified by participants that limited their capacity to take action on the workshop strategies, specifically: (i) organizations' lack of priorities or competing priorities; (ii) priorities secondary to the organizational mandate; (iii) disconnect between organizational and community priorities; (iv) disconnect between community organization priorities; (v) disconnect between organizations and government/funder priorities; (vi) limited resources (i.e. time, money and personnel); and, (vii) bigger community issues. The primary facilitator of individual capacity to take action or priority strategies was supportive organizations. Recognition of these elements will allow practitioners, organizations, governments/funders, and communities to focus on seeking ways to improve capacity for chronic disease prevention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".