Evaluating the Implementation of a Pediatric Patient Navigation Center for Children and Youth With Complex Care Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NaviCare/SoinsNavi was a research-based patient navigation center for children/youth with complex care needs (CCNs) in New Brunswick, Canada.This process evaluation focused on the implementation of NaviCare/SoinsNavi by exploring indicators related to program coverage and process.Key indicators were explored using client charts and program archives as well as stakeholder interviews with clients (n 14) and members of the NaviCare/SoinsNavi team (n 6).NaviCare/ SoinsNavi served 162 families and 42 care providers between January 2017 and May 2020.Most clients lived in one of the three major cities in New Brunswick (Saint John, Fredericton, and Moncton), and were English-speaking.The most commonly reported diagnoses were autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and global developmental delay.The most prominent themes among NaviCare/ SoinsNavi team members related to program coverage and program process were (1) expanding the reach and coverage of NaviCare/SoinsNavi through the implementation of a sustained outreach strategy; (2) maintaining the center's research program; and (3) continuing to build stakeholder relationships to support integrated models of care.The most prominent themes among clients related to program coverage and program process were (1) client satisfaction with program implementation for both caregivers and care providers; (2) recommendations for more sustained outreach strategies; (3) a desire for more hands-on support; and (4) the need to continue building stakeholder relationships to support integrated models of care.This process evaluation demonstrated that NaviCare/SoinsNavi was successfully implemented as planned and produced recommendations for improvements to future iterations of the program.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".