MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411129603 · doi:10.1111/cch.70110

Services Delivered by Specialized Professionals in Childcare Settings in Québec, Canada: Strengths and Limitations of Current Service Delivery Models

2025· article· en· W4411129603 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabrielle Pratte, Mélanie Couture, Chantal Camden, Julie Poissant, Audrée Jeanne Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsService delivery frameworkService (business)Current (fluid)Service modelPsychologyNursingGerontologyMedicineBusinessEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Specialized professionals, including healthcare professionals and early childhood special educators (ECSEs), wish to offer more in-context interventions in childcare settings. Limited information is available about how these services are and should be organized. The aim of this study was to describe the different service delivery models currently used in a context of publicly funded healthcare and childcare systems (Québec, Canada) and to identify the strengths and limitations of these models. METHODS: An interpretative descriptive research approach was used. Qualitative data from an online survey (n = 344) and semi-structured interviews (n = 18) were used. Questions focused on the description of services (e.g., type of specialized professionals involved, children served, funding) and strengths and limitations of those services. Data were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data were classified into 10 service delivery models and are presented using a four-quadrant paradigm based on the source of funding (either internal [childcare-led] or external to childcare) and the focus of service (either child-centred or childcare-centred). Services funded by childcare providers (Quadrants 1 and 3) offered flexibility in addressing priority needs identified by childcare providers and facilitated collaboration with early childhood educators. Childcare-centred models (Quadrants 3 and 4) addressed the needs of children not receiving individual healthcare services. Healthcare-funded services (Quadrants 2 and 4) provided free services for childcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Each service delivery model had its own strengths and limitations. To enhance support for childcare providers and the children they serve, stakeholders should consider using a variety of service delivery models covering all four quadrants. Three key actions should be considered to improve current services: (1) incorporate more childcare-centred services to reduce the number of underserved children; (2) offer more childcare-led services to align with priority needs identified by childcare providers; and (3) improve intersectoral collaboration by developing cross-institutional policies. KEY MESSAGES: A variety of service delivery models is needed to enhance support for childcare providers and the children they serve. Childcare-centred service delivery models could serve a greater number of children, particularly those underserved by child-centred service delivery models. Childcare-led service delivery models are needed to align services with the needs and priorities identified by childcare providers. Healthcare and childcare systems would benefit from formalized cross-institutional policies to facilitate intersectoral collaboration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207