Youth receiving protection and advocacy services in the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts and service recommendations from the perspectives of youth and their supporters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been limited research examining the perspectives of children and youth receiving protective services during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite reported challenges of unmet support needs due to reduced services. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to elicit experiences in navigating the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of youth receiving child/youth protection and advocacy services, and that of their supporters/advocates. Participants were invited to reflect on their experiences in the pandemic and offer recommendations for better supporting youth during a pandemic. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Using a convenience sampling approach, 32 participants were recruited for study participation. They comprised youth receiving child/youth protection and advocacy services (n = 10), peer mentors (e.g., young adults who had received and aged out of youth protective services) (n = 2), informal adult supporters/advocates such as foster parents (n = 4), and professional service providers/advocates serving youth who were receiving youth protection services (n = 16). METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were inductively analyzed based on line-by-line coding, code categorization, identification of themes, and mapping of themes. RESULTS: Support provided by child/youth protection and advocacy services were decreased or modified during the pandemic. Participants conveyed pandemic-related challenges both for youth and service providers, yet resilience among youth. Impacts on youth comprised mental health struggle, uncertainty and feeling alone, increased personal responsibility, personal coping strategies, and heightened recognition of system gaps. Recommendations for future pandemic planning and recovery are offered. CONCLUSIONS: Critical struggles of youth in receipt of mandated protective and advocacy services, and their supporters resulted from service modifications in the pandemic. Results inform services, and call for action in advancing proactive pandemic/disaster planning in the child and youth care sector.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".