Family Wellbeing: Equitable, Accessible, and Quality Services for Children and Youth with Complex Care Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This reflective paper entitled “Family Wellbeing: Equitable, Accessible, and Quality Services for Children and Youth with Complex Care Needs ” will contextualize the Master’s Project, which is a literature review entitled “Children’s Health Foundation of Vancouver Island: Literature Review Study – Children with Complex Care Needs” conducted on behalf of the charitable organization Children’s Health Foundation of Vancouver Island (CHF). This reflective paper will situate the literature review (referred to in the paper as the “the Complex Care Needs (CCNs) Project”) within the context of the Child and Youth Care field. The CCNs Project explores the ways in which social and healthcare services for children with CCNs can improve their accessibility and quality. CCNs are defined as physical and/or developmental disabilities, medical conditions, or illnesses, however, this reflective paper argues that each CCN, and each person seen as having them, must be contextualized within the continuing and dynamic social and power structures of their societies, circumstances, and cultures. Therefore, the research for both the literature review and in this reflective paper is informed by the Social Determinants of Health perspective, which provides a lens through which to address equity concerns which in this research will discuss the intersections of CCNs, migration and Indigeneity. The CNNs Project utilizes a narrative approach in conducting a literature review that reinterprets, reconfigures, and rediscovers the existing information, thus displaying a new ‘story of the data’ in a fashion accessible and useful to the CHF and their shareholders (a community of professionals, donors, and practitioners in the social and healthcare sector), and this reflective paper will continue that narrative by adding contextualizing factors such as the social location of the author, some post structuralist theory and tenets of Child and Youth Care practice such as strength-based practice and commitments to social justice. The conclusions in the reflective paper reveal insights into the collection of trends and recommendations regarding ways to improve CCNs service quality and accessibility from the CCNs Project. These insights include that a) community inclusion is integral to the wellbeing of persons with CCNs, b) systemic barriers continue to impede the accessibility and quality of programs and services for these children and their families, and such barriers are layered when the family is also Indigenous, racialized, or made up of Newcomers, and c) practices that uphold trusting relationships are key to the inclusion and wellbeing of people with CCNs. This reflective paper also reviews some specific parts of the research findings in the CCNs Project which will provide examples that link this research to practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".