The CHAP-EMS health promotion program: a qualitative study on participants’ views of the role of paramedics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expanded roles for paramedics, commonly termed community paramedicine, are becoming increasingly common. Paramedics working in community paramedicine roles represent a distinct departure away from the traditional emergency paradigm of paramedic services. Despite this, little research has addressed how community paramedics are perceived by their clients. METHODS: This study took an interpretivist qualitative approach to examine participants' perceptions of paramedics providing a community paramedicine program, named the Community Health Assessment Program through Emergency Medical Services (CHAP-EMS). Both participant observation and semi-structured interviews conducted with program participants were used to gain insight into the on-the-ground experiences of the program. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze all data. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: i) Caring and trusting relationships; ii) paramedics as health advocates; iii) the added value of EMS skills. Paramedics were perceived by residents as having dual identities: first in a novel role as health advocates and secondly in a traditional role as emergency experts despite lacking contextual features associated with emergency response. CONCLUSIONS: From this exploratory, qualitative study we present an emerging framework in which to conceptualize paramedic roles in community paramedicine settings. Future research should address the saliency of these roles in different contexts and how these roles relate to paramedic practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".