MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292380549 · doi:10.1136/ihj-2021-000089

Implementing integrated-youth services virtually in British Columbia during the COVID-19 pandemic

2022· article· en· W4292380549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marco Zenone, Al Raimundo, Suhail Nanji, Neha Uday, Karen Tee, Alayna Ewert, Warren Helfrich, Godwin Chan, Steve Mathias, Skye Barbic

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Healthcare Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicService (business)Medical educationPublic relationsPsychologyBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Foundry responded to support youth across the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, by creating a virtual platform to deliver integrated services to youth. In this paper, we report on the development of Foundry Virtual services, initial evaluation results and lessons learnt for others implementing virtual services. Methods and analysis: In April 2020, Foundry launched its virtual services, providing young people and their caregivers from across BC with drop-in counselling services via chat, voice or video calls. Foundry consulted with youth and caregivers to implement, improve and add services. Using Foundry's quality improvement data tool, we document service utilisation, the demographic profile of young people accessing virtual services, and how young people rate the quality of services accessed. Findings: Since launching, 3846 unique youth accessed Foundry Virtual services over 8899 visits, totalling 11 943 services accessed. The predominant services accessed were walk in counselling (32.5%), mental health and substance use services (31.4%), youth peer support (17.2%) and group services (7.3%). Over 95% of youth reported that they would recommend virtual services to a friend. Conclusion: In response to our early findings, we provide three recommendations for other implementers. First, engage the audience in which you intend to serve at every phase of the project. Second, invest in the needs of staff to ensure they are prepared and supported to deliver services. Last, imbed a learning health system to allow for the resources culture of continuous learning improvement that allows for rapid course adjustments and shared learning opportunities.

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)0.004
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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Healthcare JournalSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207