Early intervention in Canada: perceptions of parents and service providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the federal government does not mandate Early Intervention in Canada, decisions are left to provincial and territorial jurisdiction, resulting in discrepancies in services and supports across the country.In an effort to examine these differences, 427 Canadian service providers and 381 Canadian parents took part in our study.Provinces and territories were compared with one another on a number of variables including funding, wait times, program intensity, parent and service provider satisfaction, service comprehensiveness, coping strategies, and perceptions of family-centered care.Canadian service providers were more similar than different in terms of several variables, including average wait times, number of services, and ratings of program satisfaction.Parents from across Canada also reported similarities in terms of average age of service delivery onset, average wait times, parental coping strategies, and perceptions of family-centered care.Despite many similarities, several differences were also found across Canada.According to parent report, children in Alberta received their diagnosis significantly earlier than children in Quebec.Canadian parents also reported differences in terms of their satisfaction with their respective program, with parents in Nova Scotia and Alberta reporting the greatest levels of satisfaction.Differences were also found across Canada in terms of satisfaction with government support, again with parents in Alberta reporting the greatest levels of satisfaction.The implications for service providers, families, researchers, and other key stakeholders are discussed and directions for future research are explored.Early Intervention x Résumé Comme le gouvernement fédéral ne favorise pas l'intervention précoce au Canada, les décisions reposent sur les épaules des juridictions provinciales et territoriales.Cela explique les nombreuses divergences au niveau du support et des services à travers le pays.427 fournisseurs de service canadiens et 381 parents canadiens ont pris part à notre étude.Nous avons comparé les variables des provinces et territoires, incluant le financement, les délais d'attente, l'intensité du programme, la satisfaction des parents et des professionnels du secteur, la globalité des services, les stratégies d'ajustement et la perception des soins centrés sur la famille.À l'analyse de plusieurs variables telles que les temps d'attente, la quantité de services offerts et le niveau d'appréciation du programme, on remarque plus de similarités que de différences parmi les professionnels canadiens offrant ces services.À travers le Canada, les parents ont aussi rapporté des similitudes en termes de moyenne de délais d'attente, d'âge moyen de début des interventions, de stratégies d'ajustement des familles et de perception des soins centrés sur la famille.Malgré plusieurs correspondances dans nos statistiques nationales, nous avons aussi relevé quelques différences au pays.D'après le rapport des parents, les enfants albertains reçoivent leur diagnostique considérablement plus tôt que les enfants québécois.Les parents canadiens ont aussi affiché des distinctions en termes de satisfaction face à leur programme respectif ; les parents de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de l'Alberta affectionnant davantage leur programme.Enfin, nous remarquons un niveau de satisfaction variable face à l'appui gouvernemental, les parents albertains démontrant Early Intervention xi encore une fois un niveau plus élevé de satisfaction.Nous discutons des implications pour les professionnels de service, les familles, les chercheurs et autres joueurs-clef.De nouvelles pistes de recherche sont aussi explorées.* Sensitizing EI centers to best practices, success factors, and alternative EI models; * Motivating EI centers to re-examine practices in light of inventory of other models; * Encouraging EI centers to add new elements in their intervention approaches; * Evaluating your own EI centre in comparison to other similar sites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".