A community health needs evaluation: improving uptake of services at a children’s centre in a deprived and geographically isolated town
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation identified health and social trends for this deprived and geographically isolated area, elicited perceived health needs of under-fives in the local community, and informed development and improvement of services offered by a children’s centre. Sure Start children’s centres are crucial to delivery of outcomes of the Every Child Matters policy initiative as well as offering support for parenting. The children’s centre in the study sought to develop its services and to increase the numbers of registered users particularly among ‘hard to reach’ groups in the locality. Leafleting, street-canvassing, primary school newsletters and posters were used to advise the community of the consultation. Data were collected by telephone interviews, group and face-to-face interviews with parents and professionals, structured interviews in the town centre streets and analysis of policy and health statistics documents. The area was characterized by inadequate transport links and limited sources of good value local food supplies. The key areas of Every Child Matters were not meaningful concepts to most parents in connecting to their children’s health. Residents and professionals recognized low levels of parental expectations for their children. Specific barriers to service uptake were identified, but the children’s centre made a positive contribution to the health and well-being of the population, providing an effective service in terms of variety, resources and professional help. Additional services, better access to some services, revised opening times, additional transport, and integration of provision for siblings resulted from the study.
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 | 0.055 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".