The Nature of Resident Participation in the Exploration and Installation Stages of the Implementation of a Community-based Primary Prevention Program for Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resident participation is a vital factor and key prerequisite to the planning, development and implementation of community-driven projects. Early implementation evaluations, especially during the planning stages of project development, are critical to ensuring effective resident participation. Understanding the nature of resident participation, including the activities involved, facilitators, barriers, and outcomes of engagement, is essential for laying the foundation for program success and sustainability. This study was an implementation evaluation of a small community-based initiated project that examined resident participation, varying by degrees of involvement throughout the early stages of implementation. The sample (N = 11) consisted of three service-providers, two highly-engaged residents, four less-engaged residents and two project staff. The qualitative data analysis found that during the exploration stage, highly-engaged residents and service-providers participated in similar activities. However, as the implementation process progressed into the following installation stage, highly-engaged residents expressed desires to reduce involvement and responsibilities, while project staff, service-providers and those less involved wished to remain as involved or increase participation. Additionally, findings revealed that project challenges were perceived differently by residents, regardless of level of involvement, than by service-providers and project staff. The findings of this study produced recommendations for increasing facilitators and reducing barriers to resident participation during the early stages of an implementation process of a community-based project.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".