Cross-training to work better together with women in Quebec who use substances: care providers’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some authors have called attention to the lack of service integration related to evaluation and treatment of parental substance abuse, an ongoing challenge for service providers. A cross-training project involving exchanges (immersion sessions) among clinical teams was established to improve the integration, effectiveness and coherence of interventions for pregnant women and mothers with problematic substance use, and to prevent negative impacts of substance abuse on parenting skills and on foetal and child development. The research goal was to understand, from the perspectives of care providers, how cross-training either fosters or fails to foster changes in the practices of care providers who work with young pregnant women and mothers whose use of psychotropic drugs puts them at risk of neglecting their children. The cross-training project was carried out between 2009 and 2013. During the last phase of the project, focus group data were collected from 14 different clinical teams (N = 121) from the fields of substance abuse, child protection, perinatality and early childhood. The responses of each focus group yielded data for thematic analysis, performed using a mixed coding approach that included predefined and emerging themes. Points of convergence and divergence were identified by comparing what was said in different groups and types of clinical settings. At the conclusion of the project, the care providers said they knew their clinical partners better, communicated more with each other and made more referrals to those partners, and were better able to express themselves clearly about the effects of psychotropic drug use on the foetus, the child and the parenting role. In conclusion, the project helped create a culture of co-operation and partnership that has direct effects on services for pregnant women and young mothers who use substances.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".