251 Co-creating the cultural adaptation of health and social services to the needs and aspirations of youth who identify as im·migrants, refugees, racialized and/or belonging to a cultural minority group: insights from an intersectoral process in Quebec/Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PTH 6: Health Policy and Health Services 1, B307 (FCSH), September 4, 2025, 16:30 - 17:30 Aims Youth who identify as im·migrants, refugees, racialized and/or belonging to a cultural minority group face significant physical and mental health challenges in Global North countries like Canada. This presentation showcases the preliminary evaluation results of a co-creation process aiming at culturally adapting youth services to the needs and aspirations of these youth. It focuses on the co-initiation and co-design phases of an intersectoral process involving multiple stakeholders - youth, parents, community leaders, practitioners, as well as researchers – in Quebec, Canada. Methods This study consists of a process evaluation method designed to analyse how co-created interventions are implemented and how they can be improved. Its main stages are co-initiation (ideation and launching), co-design (conception) and co-implementation (implementation of the co-creation process). It is anchored in critical and anti-racist approached to service and knowledge co-creation. Results Preliminary results show the potential of involving all concerned stakeholders in the co-creation of culturally adapted services. They highlight specific institutional challenges in engaging all concerned stakeholders in the co-initiation phase of the co-creation process. They also underline how the co-design phase of the co-creation process has potential to benefit stakeholders at the individual and organizational level. Conclusions Despite facing additional challenges, youth who identify as im·migrants, refugees, racialized and/or belonging to a cultural minority group are underrepresented in youth services. In order to address this situation, better understanding and adapting services to their needs and aspirations is crucial. Co-creation appears as a promising process and methods to reach the goal of culturally adapting services.
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 | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".