MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209430755 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.055

70 Sharing Child Health Knowledge in an Urban Inuit Community: A Needs Assessment

2021· article· en· W3209430755 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Bierstone, Brian Hummel, Dennis Newhook, Radha Jetty

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisHealth promotionIndigenousPopulationCommunity healthPublic healthMedicineQualitative researchNursingEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Public Health and Preventive Medicine Background It is well established that significant health disparities continue to affect Canadian Indigenous children living both in remote and urban areas. A critical component of health promotion is health knowledge dissemination. A 2011 Health Council of Canada study identified the need for better community knowledge of parenting and child health as intervention targets among Indigenous communities across Canada. Objectives In the present study, we aimed to explore the perspectives of Inuit parents and caregivers in one urban setting (Ottawa, Ontario) on the dissemination of child health knowledge specifically, with the intention of guiding future community-based child health promotion initiatives. Design/Methods Ottawa, being home to the largest Inuit population living outside Inuit Nunangat, provided an ideal study location. Many Inuit report relocating to Ottawa for employment, education, or for greater access to heath services. We therefore partnered with the Ottawa-based Inuuqatigiit Centre for Children, Youth, and Families, to design and conduct a needs assessment through a series of focus groups. Focus groups explored participants’ current sources of child health knowledge, child health topics of interest, and preferred formats for child health knowledge dissemination. Focus groups were held at Inuuqatigiit and included a meal of country food shared by study participants and research team members to support relationship-building and engagement. Focus groups were analyzed using an inductive approach to qualitative thematic analysis. Results 24 Inuit parents and caregivers participated in 4 focus groups. Factors affecting preferred sources of health knowledge included trustworthiness, fear of discrimination, cultural differences, and having a holistic approach. Participants identified several child health issues that should be the focus of future child health knowledge sharing initiatives, in particular those in which a sense of cultural dissonance was felt between traditional and Western approaches. In-person and online/interactive sessions were preferred over written materials. Many participants agreed that child health knowledge-sharing initiatives should be designed and delivered with involvement of the community. Participants also emphasized the importance of synthesizing traditional knowledge of Elders with that of health professionals. Conclusion There is a need for better child health knowledge dissemination strategies among the Ottawa Inuit community as a crucial aspect of health promotion. Special considerations when designing such initiatives must be given to historical dynamics of trust and mistrust of the health professions, to addressing cultural differences, and to the role of community members in the design and implementation of initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→