MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417196631 · doi:10.3390/nursrep15120440

Developing the Community Paramedicine Needs Assessment Tool

2025· article· en· W4417196631 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brendan Shannon, Cheryl Cameron, Aman Hussain, Lizzie Caperon, Alan M Batt

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersHealthcare Excellence Canada
KeywordsNeeds assessmentInterimCommunity organizationCommunity healthService providerResource (disambiguation)Service (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Community paramedicine programs have existed since the early 2000s, and while resource optimization remains a predominant driver, innovation in recent years demonstrates that when community paramedicine is integrated into healthcare, it is well-positioned to support the needs of structurally marginalized communities by focusing services for those facing barriers to accessing equitable care. A recent scoping review described the evolving ways community paramedicine models are addressing health and social needs within communities around the world. We aimed to identify and explore existing community needs assessment tools in Canada to guide the initial development of a needs assessment tool for community paramedicine. Methods: We conducted a document analysis of existing community needs assessment resources to identify current tools or processes used to identify community needs, as well as determine gaps to address and support. Documents were collected for review via a targeted literature search of both published and gray sources, and direct document requests of community paramedicine service providers to review guides informing current service planning in Canada. We presented a draft of the tool to participants at a community paramedicine conference for their review and feedback, and we incorporated this feedback into the final version. Results: We reviewed 38 documents to identify and synthesize key elements within community health and social needs assessment tools and frameworks. Findings informed an interim Community Paramedicine Needs Assessment Tool (CPNAT) that the team presented to 112 community paramedicine experts and partners. We received 33 group responses of detailed feedback that we used to further refine and finalize the tool. Conclusions: The CPNAT can support enhanced health equity by guiding community paramedicine programs to better align services, policies, and funding with the health and social care needs of communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0190.013
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ReportsSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207