A participatory process to support the implementation of integrated youth services in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Integrated youth services (IYS) have been implemented worldwide for decades, and numerous studies have demonstrated their ability to more appropriately meet the needs of young people (Bassilios et al., 207; Bentayeb et al., 2022a; Callaly et al., 2009; Patulny et al., 203; Rickwood et al., 205). In Quebec, since 208, the Ministry of Health and Social Services and its partners have been working to establish IYS to better meet the needs of young people. This initiative - the Aire Ouverte program - is currently being implemented throughout the province. In addition to engaging in demonstration sites to ensure the suitability of this model in the Quebec context (Bentayeb et al., 2022b; Touati et al., 2024), managers and practitioners required support for the local implementation of these IYS. Thus, our study proposes a mixed systematic literature review supported by consultation with youth and clinicians and a deliberative process with clinicians and decision makers (Bentayeb et al., 2022a). Approach: This presentation outlines a participatory process to support the implementation of integrated youth services[GU] based on an international mixed systematic literature review (Creswell et al., 20) supported by consultation with youth, clinicians and decision makers (Bentayeb et al., 2022a). Scientific as well as grey literature was at the core of the literature review - 26 references were finally included in the study. Convergent synthesis designs were conducted, and the resulting data was analyzed in parallel. The literature review showed the relevance and efficacy of IYS to better support youth holistic wellbeing in terms of mental and physical health.The results of the literature review were then contextualized with stakeholders from Quebec: 2 youth initially completed a questionnaire virtually and in person and were then invited to take part in a debate on two open questions; 4 clinicians working with youth in public services also answered an online questionnaire about the main components that can improve the well-being and service trajectory of youth identified in the systematic literature review. These findings as well as initial recommendations from the literature review were finally discussed with members of a deliberative committee made up of decision-makers and managers in youth mental health and global health public services, community organizations and the Ministry of Health and Social Services. Results: The literature review and consultation of stakeholders led to the identification of nine key components for a successful implementation of IYS network for youth aged 2 to 25 years old (Bentayeb et al., 2022): ) integrated services and spaces and youth-friendly spaces; 2) services adapted to the reality of youth; 3) promotion of services and brand image; 4) collaboration and partnership; 5) continuous service path; 6) place for youth, parents and relatives; 7) integrated and cross-sectoral governance; 8) recurrent funding and reinvented accountability; 9) integrated research and evaluation approach. These findings have since then informed the large-scale implementation of IYS Aire Ouverte across the province of Quebec, and led to the other projects aiming at better supporting youth and their family. The robustness of these findings and their implementation in practice is reinforced by the participatory component of the process, notably the deliberative committee which addressed the feasibility and relevance of the recommendations that came out of the literature review as well as consultation with youth and clinicians. Implications: This presentation aims to increase participants knowledge about the key components of a successful participatory process supporting the implementation of IYS in collaboration with youth as well as clinicians and decision makers. It also gives participants insights on the ways researchers can bridge findings from international scientific and grey literature with consultation of stakeholders - youth, clinicians supporting them and decision-makers.
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 | 0.133 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".