PD55 Evidence-Based Practices To Support Well-Being And School Success Of Children And Youth In Out-Of-Home Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Children and youth in out-of-home care face many challenges regarding their development and general well-being. It is necessary to put in place best practices to support them where they are most vulnerable. Providing recommendations to health and social services for best practices regarding social and academic success interventions, this study puts forward a synthesis method that combines empirical data and the expertise of key practitioners in the context of Quebec social services. Methods A systematic review was first undertaken to identify the most effective interventions. Included studies (n = 31) were analyzed according to their methodological quality, collaboration processes, and type of care (foster home vs. residential care). To ensure the applicability of the recommendations made in the context of Quebec social services, contextual data, and clinical expertise were collected. Contextual data was gathered through local research reports, administrative data, and government documents. The expertise of multiple stakeholders was obtained in follow-up committees and semi-structured interviews (n = 4). In addition, to ensure their relevance and scope, recommended guidelines were debated in a deliberation committee. Results The analysis between expert, contextual and empirical data led to several recommended evidence-based practices. In accordance with expert opinions, experimental and quasi-experimental studies show that various types of collaboration are beneficial for children and youth in out-of-home care. Notably, intersectoral collaborations were warranted in more complex situations (i.e., youth in residential centers), while partnership agreement was sufficient in less complex situations (i.e., children in foster homes). However, even if effective, some interventions are difficult to apply in real life and certain considerations must be taken into account (e.g. confidentiality issues, availability of resources). Conclusions Utilizing three sets of data, guidelines have been proposed to help health and social services to identify best practices and promote the academic development of out-of-home care children and youth.
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 | 0.049 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".