95 Child Health Promotion Through Community Educational Sessions in an Urban Inuit Community: A Needs Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction/Background Canadian Inuit children experience significant health disparities compared to their non-Inuit counterparts. Despite almost one-fifth of Canadian Inuit living in urban centres, few studies have explored their health needs. Current literature surveying Indigenous leaders identifies the need for improved access to child health and parenting knowledge. Community-based initiatives have been shown to improve Indigenous maternal and child health outcomes. Our study aimed to describe urban Inuit parents’ perspectives on accessing child health knowledge to guide development of Inuit-specific health knowledge-sharing initiatives. Objectives Design/Methods In conjunction with community partners, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment through focus groups at an urban-situated organization that provides cultural, educational, and social services to Inuit children and families. Participants were parents and caregivers of Inuit children. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo software. Inductive coding was used to identify themes related to participants’ sources of health knowledge, barriers and facilitators to accessing health knowledge, and health topics that participants hoped to learn more about. Results Twenty-four individuals participated in four focus groups, of which twenty-one (88%) identified as Inuit. While participants represented a range of ages (19-40 years), most participants (42%) were 31-40 years old. The majority of participants (88%) identified as female. Participants had lived a median of 15 years in an urban setting (interquartile range 10-23). Seventeen participants (71%) cared for children aged 5 or younger. The main sources of health knowledge reported were Indigenous-focused services, online resources, telehealth and social networks (e.g. family and peers). The most notable barrier to accessing child health information was cultural differences (i.e. lifestyle and parenting practices). Discrimination and challenges with systems navigation also emerged as themes. Key health topics of interest included common childhood complaints (e.g. infections and immunizations), infant care, nutrition, parenting and development, mental health, and sexual education for adolescents. Preferred modes of child health information delivery were in-person sessions, pamphlets, and online videos with preferences for both health care providers and Inuit Elders as facilitators. Key access factors included Inuit language/translation, convenience of location, transportation, scheduling, and presence of food and childcare. Conclusion Our results reveal important factors affecting access to child health knowledge among Inuit families in a large urban setting, as well as key child health topics of interest to this population. Informed by these findings and with help from our community partners, we are co-developing child health knowledge-sharing initiatives specific to the needs of the Inuit community in our region.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".