Barriers and facilitators to implementation of developmental screening and early intervention in Canadian organizations following completion of a training and coaching model: a thematic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Developmental delay affects approximately 1 in 4 children under 6 years old. Developmental delay can be detected using validated developmental screening tools, such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaires. Following developmental screening, early intervention can occur to address and support any developmental areas of concern. Frontline practitioners and supervisors must be trained and coached to organizationally implement developmental screening tools and early intervention practice. No prior work has qualitatively investigated the barriers and facilitators to implementing developmental screening and early intervention in Canadian organizations from the perspectives of practitioners and supervisors who have completed a specialized training and coaching model. Methods and Results: Following semi-structured interviews with frontline practitioners and supervisors, thematic analysis identified four themes: cohesive networks support implementation efforts, implementation success is dependent on shared perspectives, established organizational policies increase implementation opportunities, and COVID-19 guidelines create organizational challenges. Each theme encompasses sub-themes that describe implementation facilitators: strong implementation context, multi-level multi-sectoral collaborative partnerships, adequate and collective awareness, knowledge, and confidence, consistent and critical conversations, clear protocols and procedures, and accessibility to information, tools, and best practice guidelines. Discussion: The outlined barriers and facilitators fill a gap in implementation literature by informing a framework for organization-level implementation of developmental screening and early intervention following training and coaching.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".