Barriers and facilitators to implement community outreach work and collaboration with partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Community outreach workers support individuals to access health and community services through various form of proximity approaches. Even though community outreach work is present in the province of Quebec (Canada) since the past 40 years, it is still difficult to implement and sustained, especially with families with young children. The aim of this study was to document barriers and facilitators to implement community outreach work, and to describe how such workers collaborate with sectoral (e.g. healthcare) and intersectoral (e.g. municipality, community organizations, schools) partners. Methods A content analysis was performed on 55 scientific and grey literature documents, and on the transcriptions of 24 individual interviews and 3 focus groups with stakeholders including parents, community outreach workers, healthcare employees, and inter-sectoral partners. Results This study reveals four categories of barriers and facilitators acting on the implementation of community outreach work: factors related to organizational factors, to the nature of community outreach work, to the intervention with families, and external/uncontrollable factors. With regards to collaboration, community outreach workers collaborate with many partners. Good interprofessional collaboration is achieved with a positive interaction and communication, shared or co-constructed activities for the families, co-intervention with the families, and strategies to be known and intersectoral meetings. Conclusions Results highlighted that many factors interact and can either influence positively or negatively the opportunity to implement community outreach work. The collaborative practices identified might help maximizing facilitators and overcoming barriers. Advocacy and a better understanding of how to integrate community outreach work within health services while maintaining the workers' flexibility are needed to sustain this practice. Key messages Advocacy and a better understanding of how to integrate community outreach work within health services while maintaining the workers’ flexibility are needed to sustain this practice. Community outreach workers help to reduce inequalities in health.
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 | 0.033 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".