MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408885086 · doi:10.1111/hex.70240

Measuring Goal Progress Using the Goal‐Based Outcome Measure in Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario—An Integrated Youth Services Network

2025· article· en· W4408885086 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deb Chiodo, Aaron Turpin, Janis Wolfe, Karleigh Darnay, Joanna Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMacEwan UniversityOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationApplied psychologyPsychologyMental healthInterpersonal communicationGoal settingRating scaleService (business)Medical educationMedicineSocial psychologyBusinessPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Goal-based outcomes (GBOs) are a tool for youth-directed care and have been successfully used in a small number of community youth mental health settings. Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario (YWHO) uses GBO data provided by youth to deliver care that amplifies youth voice in decision-making about supports that are important and meaningful to them. OBJECTIVE: This article summarizes GBO data from youth receiving clinical and nonclinical services at YWHO hubs to develop a more nuanced understanding of the type of goals set by young people when accessing services. DESIGN: A quantitative design utilizing content analysis was adopted to organize goal data into descriptive categories, which were further analysed by goal distribution and mean rating scores. PARTICIPANTS: Youth (n = 1851) from 22 YWHO networks provided GBO and demographic data. Data were collected across 7348 service visits and youth provided 19,290 goals. Consent for service was obtained, which included the use of personal health information to monitor progress, quality improvement and for evaluation purposes. VARIABLES: GBO data included a written goal and scaled goal rating component. Service visits and demographic variables were tabulated, whereas a mean score for goal achievement (i.e., goal rating) was generated. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from the analysis, including improve mental health (42.7% coverage, mean rating 3.9), connect to services (20.9% coverage, mean rating 4.4), intrapersonal development (15.3% coverage, mean rating 3.1), interpersonal development (12.0% coverage, mean rating 3.5), improve physical health (5.4% coverage, mean rating 2.9) and address substance use/other addiction (3.0% coverage, mean rating 3.1). CONCLUSION: The GBO tool allows youth to actively participate in setting their own assessment and outcome criteria, indicate which areas they require support and wish to improve and personalize shared decision-making. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The YWHO model was co-developed by youth, families, service providers and researchers. Youth and families informed the data measures and collection processes described within this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.488
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.083 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207