Community outreach workers: Perceived practices and impacts on families and young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Community outreach workers support individuals accessing healthcare and other services that could be useful to respond to their needs. Even though community outreach workers have been working in the province of Quebec (Canada) for the past 40 years, their practice is poorly documented and evaluated, especially with respect to young children aged 0 to 5 years. This study aimed to document the practice of community outreach workers and its perceived impacts among children and families. Methods A qualitative methodology with a descriptive research design was used. We performed a content analysis on 55 scientific and grey literature documents, 24 individual interviews, and 3 focus groups with stakeholders including parents, community outreach workers, healthcare employees, and inter-sectoral partners. Results Our analysis reveals three main themes: 1) characteristics of the population served, 2) concrete actions performed by community outreach workers, and 3) perceived impacts of community outreach on families and children. Community outreach workers were perceived as essential to reach families with vulnerable circumstances and children with special needs. With respect to concrete actions, community outreach workers were reported to tailor their interventions to respond in different but complementary ways to the healthcare system. Perceived impacts included increased access for children and families to appropriate services, decreased social isolation, increased empowerment (especially with respect to parental abilities), increased social capital of families, and confidence towards the healthcare system. Results showed that community outreach workers helped to reduce inequalities in health Conclusions Community outreach work help the healthcare system to fulfill its legal mandate to protect citizen and increase health and well-being. It is crucial that such type of proximity approaches be not only encouraged but also sustained. Key messages Community outreach workers adapt their practices to act in a complementary way to the healthcare system. 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".