Processes of development related with the implementation of the Icelandic prevention model in a rural Canadian community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Icelandic Prevention Model (IPM) is a sequential 10-step community-driven collaborative intervention that is designed to support the prevention of substance use in youth by establishing healthy developmental contexts. The IPM has been implemented across Iceland for over 20 years and is now being implemented in other countries. Recognizing the need to explore how to adapt the IPM to new contexts and document the implementation of the model, this paper describes a process evaluation of the first three steps of the IPM within a Canadian rural community to capture experiences during the early development. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the processes of development and contextual features that influence the implementation of the IPM within Lanark County, Ontario? and (2) What adaptations are needed to successfully implement the IPM in Canada? Semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine experiences and lessons learned through the implementation of the model. Thematic analyses were completed using QSR NVivo. A deductive and inductive approach was applied, whereby some interview guide questions were derived from the IPM implementation steps and others were more exploratory, examining context and processes of development. Nine interviews were conducted with key partners who were leading the implementation of the IPM. Themes highlighting cultural factors that influence implementation, processes of development related to community engagement, and themes relating to youth participation, fidelity issues, fundraising, health equity and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic were identified. This paper contributes new scientific knowledge related to implementation processes within upstream prevention of substance use and practical information that is useful for communities interested in implementing the IPM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".