On the move: Exploring Inuit and non-Inuit health service providers’ perspectives about family participation in care in Nunavik, a qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Literature on participation in health and social services suggests that youth, and more specifically Indigenous youth, are difficult to engage within health and social services. They are less likely to access services or to actively participate in decision-making regarding their personal care. Service providers play a crucial role in engaging youth based on the ways in which they seek, and maintain relationships with youthand their families. The way in which they do so will depend on various factors including their own perceptions of roles and relationships of the various people involved in the life of youth. This article analyzes Inuit and non-Inuit health and social service providers’ perspectives, experiences and expectations regarding the roles of a particular group of Indigenous youth, families and community in care settings in Nunavik, Quebec. Methods: A snowball sampling method was used to recruit participants. A total of 58 participants (39 non-Inuit and 19 were Inuit) were interviewed. All interviews focused on three broad areas: 1) participants’ current and past positions/roles; 2) participants’ perceptions of the clientele they work with; and 3) participants’ understanding of collaborations taking place within and between services (who works with whom) and community. Inductive applied thematic analyses were conducted on the entirety of relevant data and then verbatim of Inuit and non-Inuit were analyzed separately to explore similarities and differences in perceptions based on positionality. Results: We organized findings around three themes: I) The most commonly described interventions, II) different types of challenges to and within participation; and III) what successful participation can look like according to service providers. Participants speak of the challenges for families to go towards services as well as the challenges for services providers to go towards youth and families, including personal, organisational and historical factors. Conclusion: We adopt a critical lens to reflect on the key findings in order to tease out points of tension and paradoxes that might hinder the participation of youth and families and more specifically in a social context of decolonization and self-governance of services.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".