The Implementation of Integrated Youth Services in Canada: Planning and Costing of a Pan-Canadian Model: La mise en œuvre des services intégrés pour les jeunes au Canada : planification et établissement des coûts d’un modèle pancanadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe implementation of Integrated Youth Services (IYS) can help ensure that youth are adequately supported. The objective of this analysis was to provide a model for the planning and costing of IYS throughout Canada over a 15-year period.MethodsTo estimate resource allocation for IYS, we determined the number of hubs and hub staffing requirements by service level and jurisdiction, backbone support and infrastructure requirements by jurisdiction. A needs-based analytic framework for planning was employed to estimate the number of hubs required. The optimal mix of hub staffing requirements was determined based on prior literature. The costs of running each hub were estimated using publicly available data and internal documents from existing IYS agencies. Finally, the cost of setting up IYS hubs, IYS virtual care and respective backbone support throughout Canada was estimated and projected over 15 years and the cost-savings of IYS were calculated.ResultsAt maturity, it was estimated that 399 hubs-188 small, 43 medium, 168 large-across Canada would be required to address youth mental health and substance use needs. The cost of implementing IYS initiatives across Canada would vary between $4,349,126 (for less populous jurisdictions) and $248,950,524 (for more populous jurisdictions), for a total annual cost of $676,633,388 (excluding costs of infrastructure). It was estimated that the implementation of IYS hubs would lead to cost-savings of $2.1 billion annually and have the potential to be cost-effective.ConclusionThe implementation of IYS hubs can provide good value for money, in the form of high client satisfaction, earlier supports with improved youth outcomes and decreased health care costs. Future work should address gaps in data availability on mental health and substance use-related needs of youth with neurodevelopmental disorders, youth experiencing homelessness, youth in congregate living and foster care, and Indigenous 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".