MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007323712 · doi:10.1186/s40900-020-0176-9

A community-driven and evidence-based approach to developing mental wellness strategies in First Nations: a program protocol

2020· article· en· W3007323712 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melody E. Morton Ninomiya, Ningwakwe George, Julie George, Renee Linklater, Julie Bull, Sara Plain, Kathryn Graham, Sharon Bernards, Laura Peach, Vicky Stergiopoulos, Paul Kurdyak, Gerald McKinley, Peter Donnelly, Samantha Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoAssembly of First NationsWilfrid Laurier UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthHealth Research Board
KeywordsParticipatory action researchMental healthIndigenousService providerFocus groupStrengths and weaknessesCommunity resilienceCommunity-based participatory researchPsychological resilienceCommunity engagementService (business)Public relationsPsychologyBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyComputer sciencePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health, substance use/addiction and violence (MSV) are important issues affecting the well-being of Indigenous People in Canada. This paper outlines the protocol for a research-to-action program called the Mental Wellness Program (MWP). The MWP aims to increase community capacity, promote relationship-building among communities, and close gaps in services through processes that place value on and supports Indigenous communities' rights to self-determination and control. The MWP involves collecting and using local data to develop and implement community-specific mental wellness strategies in five First Nations in Ontario. METHODS: The MWP has four key phases. Phase 1 (data collection) includes a community-wide survey to understand MSV issues, service needs and community strengths; in-depth interviews with individuals with lived experiences with MSV issues to understand, health system strengths, service gaps and challenges, as well as individual and community resilience factors; and focus groups with service providers to improve understanding of system weaknesses and strengths in addressing MSV. Phase 2 (review and synthesis) involves analysis of results from these local data sources and knowledge-sharing events to identify a priority area for strategic development based on local strengths and need. Phase 3 (participatory action research approach) involves community members, including persons with lived experience, working with the community and local service providers to develop, implement, and evaluate the MWP to address the selected priority area. Phase 4 (share) is focused on developing and implementing effective knowledge-sharing initiatives. Guidelines and models for building the MWP are shared regionally and provincially through forums, webinars, and social media, as well as cross-community mentoring. DISCUSSION: First Nations people that can be used by other First Nations to identify shared wellness priorities in each community, and determine and execute next steps in addressing areas of main concern.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.115 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207