Quality Improvement Process in Childcare Facilities: Results of a Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Access to quality educational facilities is a major determinant of children's well-being and a means to tackle social health inequalities. In France, ‘Accompagne-moi...!’ (AM) intervention, tested in a pilot study, was adapted from evidence-based interventions developed in Quebec. The objective of AM was to improve professional practices allowing children to develop their social and emotional skills. This research aimed to assess viable validity of AM. Viable validity “refers to stakeholders’ views and experience regarding whether an intervention program is practical, affordable, suitable, evaluable and helpful in the real-world” (Chen, 2010). Methods A qualitative study was realised in 13 childcare facilities from 4 French deprived areas (2019-22). Eight exploratory interviews, 33 semi-structured interviews with professionals were conducted. A comprehensive thematic analysis was performed. Results Childcare facilities were systems characterised by involved professionals evolving in difficult working conditions amplified in times of health crisis. The interviews showed the potential of the approach to address needs (e.g. professional training, increased awareness of children's emotions) and perceived positive effects (e.g. support for management in implementing change in the facilities, perceived effects on children). Professionals expressed a negative experience of AM (e.g. sense of failure, insufficient appropriation of the approach by the group) linked to the challenges of deploying an intervention in highly stressed environments. Conclusions This study highlights: i) potential of AM, ii) that children's well-being cannot be separated from the professional's well-being, iii) inflluence of certain structural determinants on educational practices and the quality of childcare facilities, iv) need to address these structural determinants prior to the intervention implementation. Prior to the deployment of AM on a larger scale, adaptations were proposed. Key messages • The well-being of children and professionals in childcare facilities are interdependent. • Structural determinants are key determinants of the quality of childcare facilities.
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 | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".