A cocreation process of a cultural adaptation of an integrated youth services in Québec (Canada).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Integrated Youth Services (IYS) has aimed to offer an alternative to traditional services for youth (Halsall et al., 209; Hetrick et al., 207). However, If IYS seem appropriate and effective in meeting the needs of young people, they do not always consider the cultural particularities of diverse youth (Bentayeb et al., 2022). Despite high attendance rates, several barriers persist in services reaching immigrant youth (Hilferty et al., 205), including language barriers for immigrant youth (Hilferty et al., 205; Patulny et al., 203) and the lack of community involvement in service development (Communio, 2009; Hilferty et al., 205). Field actors suggest several strategies to promote access and engagement in services (Bentayeb et al., 2022; Communio, 2009; Hilferty et al., 205), a need to culturally adapt services for diverse youth (Bentayeb et al., 2022), ethnic and racial communities (Moore, 208) and in particularly, for immigrant youth and their families/caregivers (Nadeau et al., 2020; Nadeau et al., 208; Nadeau et al., 207). Approach: Since 208-209, Aire ouverte, an IYS for youth aged 2 to 25, has been implemented across Quebec, Canada. In order to plan the Aire ouverte cultural adaptation at the early implementation stages, we adopted an interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and intersectional approach to ensure equitable access. Thus, our research, based on a co-creation approach (Baptista et al., 2020; Torfing et al., 209), seeks to co-create this cultural adaptation with the relevant actors, for racialized, immigrant, refugee, and cultural minority youth in four Quebec regions (Montreal, Capitale Nationale, Estrie, Outaouais). This cultural adaptation is framed on the Equity-Centered Community Design (ECCD) framework (Creative Reaction Lab, 208), which is a flexible system that addresses complex intersectional issues faced by diverse youth, their parents/caregivers/families, community leaders, and the practitioners. The ECCD approach allows us to adopt a democratic, non-linear, and emancipatory process divided into eight steps, emphasizing actorscontribution at every stage through creative and deliberative activities.Over a year and a half, we will conduct 4 co-creation circle meetings with practitioners, youth, parents/caregivers/families, and community leaders. These meetings will vary between subgroup discussions and larger group sessions, focusing on themes such as respect and mutual listening, diverse perspectives on lived and transmitted history, recognition and deconstruction of power dynamics, expression of needs, reflection on cultural adaptation, and anticipated impacts. The final two meetings will be deliberative workshops where stakeholders present their proposals for culturally adapting services to managers. Each region will have a territorial steering committee composed of clinicians, managers, parents, community leaders, and youth to oversee the process, support participant recruitment, and develop tools for service evaluation. Results: This inclusive co-creation process aims to balance and integrate the viewpoints, needs, and concerns of all actors, countering power imbalances. The cocreation process offers a collective learning space and empowers the cocreators. For integrated services, this research, hopefully, will enhance service access and retention for the target youth population, create a culturally safe care environment, and reduce health inequities. Implications: This proposition has many implications. The main ones are situated at a methodological level and a practical level. First, using the ECCD-based co-creation approach for service adaptation will serve as a model for other IYS implemented in different contexts in Canada and at an international level. Second, the outcomes of this cultural adaptation process will provide a roadmap for practitioners and managers to implement culturally adapted services and ensure a safe care environment for all youth. In our large research project, we plan to support Aire ouverte teams during cultural adaptation implementation and to evaluate the cocreation process and the implementation process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".