MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2764332708 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e97b

178: Substance Abuse Prevention in the Maskwacis Four Nations: A Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership

2015· article· en· W2764332708 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lola Baydala, Natasha Rabbit, Mélissa Tremblay, Joshua St. Louis

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity-based participatory researchParticipatory action researchGeneral partnershipCommunity engagementPresentation (obstetrics)Health careCitizen journalismPublic relationsSocial determinants of healthMedical educationNursingMedicinePsychologySociologyPublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Canadian pediatric health care providers participate in the conduct and dissemination of research involving Aboriginal children. Even if they are not directly involved in research, front-line clinicians have insight into issues, both medical and sociopolitical, affecting the health of Aboriginal patients, and are uniquely positioned to highlight areas where thoughtfully conducted research could improve the health status of Aboriginal children. A community-based participatory research approach (CBPR; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003) can identify and address the social determinants of health that impact Aboriginal children and their communities. The current presentation describes a CBPR project carried out by university and First Nation community partners. In response to high rates of substance abuse in their communities, members of a First Nation community invited university researchers to form a partnership to culturally adapt, implement, and evaluate an evidence-based substance abuse and violence prevention program. The objectives of the current presentation are to (1) share evaluation findings from three years of program implementation in community schools; (2) describe how CBPR can address the social determinants of health and build the capacity of university and community partners to address important health issues; and (3) demonstrate how different research paradigms can co-exist in an ethical space that honors multiple worldviews. Evaluation of the culturally adapted program utilized a mixed method approach. Outcome Mapping (Earl, Carden, & Smutylo, 2001), a unique participatory evaluation tool, documented changes in behaviors, relationships, actions, and activities of program stakeholders. Additionally, pre- and post- program questionnaires were distributed to students, and a linear mixed model was used to evaluate learning of program content. Finally, focus groups were conducted with community members to obtain program feedback. Outcome Mapping documented how the process of culturally adapting, implementing, and evaluating the prevention program (1) acted as a catalyst for community development, and (2) built community and academic capacity to facilitate community change. The results of pre- and post-program questionnaires indicated statistically significant improvements in student knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to substance abuse, and focus groups captured the critical importance of the program's cultural content. The process of forming and maintaining a community-university partnership, as well as culturally adapting, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of an evidence based substance abuse and violence prevention program led to meaningful individual and community change. Implications relevant to research and practice will be discussed, and findings will be presented from the perspectives of both community and university partners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.377
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.095 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→