Feasibility trial of the school‐based STRONG intervention to promote resilience among newcomer youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are thousands of refugee students in Canadian schools and many struggle with distress and trauma symptoms. Even those not demonstrating overt distress may face adjustment challenges. This paper describes the pilot of the Supporting Transition Resilience of Newcomer Groups (STRONG) program in ten schools. STRONG is a 10‐session, manualized program focused on building skills and helping students process their migration journey. This pilot used a pragmatic mixed‐methods approach to evaluate the feasibility of STRONG, with a focus on acceptability, implementation, and perceived utility of the intervention. Clinicians ( n = 16) provided data at the training, throughout the intervention and at the end through clinician surveys and focus groups. Clinicians reported high levels of acceptability for the training and program. Implementation challenges included time constraints, external influences, and some challenges with language. Overall STRONG was seen to provide significant positive benefits for students in increasing connectedness, stress management, and coping strategies. Clinicians felt that students developed more positive self‐image and had improved optimism. This feasibility trial of the STRONG program indicated the potential utility for promoting resilience and reducing distress among refugee students through a structured, school‐based group intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".