Preventing youth substance use is complex. It requires looking beyond individual behaviours to the broader environments that shape young people’s lives. The Icelandic Prevention Model (IPM) is designed with this complexity in mind by working towards creating healthier peer, leisure, family, school, and digital environments. Rather than prescribing a top-down program or approach, it is a process driven by community coalitions and tailored at every step to reflect local realities, cultures, relationships, and resources.
With the model still relatively new in Canada, IPM communities are charting their own path, innovating solutions, and learning as they go. What works in one community may look very different in another. Although useful supports are available to guide this work, its innovative and context-specific nature means that questions may emerge without simple or ready-made answers. That’s why one of the greatest assets Canadian IPM communities have is each other.
As part of its mandate, the KDE Hub facilitates connections between IPM communities across Canada. Last November, we hosted an inaugural symposium, bringing together members of 13 projects implementing the IPM nationwide. Funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Youth Substance Use Prevention Program (YSUPP), this event created space for participants to connect, learn, and problem-solve together.
The symposium was a mixture of presentations and interactive sessions and included two World Café sessions – a structured approach that invites participants into small-group conversations that rotate over multiple rounds. Attendees joined discussions that explored:
- Creating buy-in and shared ownership
- Using data for action
- Influencing local systems and policies
- Implementing in rural and remote contexts
- Engaging parents and caregivers
- Implementing in Indigenous contexts
- Building and sustaining coalitions
- Understanding emerging factors in youth substance use
The World Café format offered more than discussion; it created opportunities for participants to get to know one another through shared questions, lived experiences, and diverse perspectives. Some conversations sparked new ideas and highlighted promising practices. Others underscored shared challenges and uncertainties. And while there were not always clear-cut answers, there is value in recognizing shared realities and learning alongside one another.
Events like the YSUPP symposium highlight that in a field as complex as youth substance use prevention, learning together can be a powerful tool to hone our practice, strengthen our mission, and drive meaningful change.
What We Did
We developed discussion topics based on YSUPP project community input provided during a previous KDE Hub-hosted webinar. Symposium participants then chose which discussions they’d like to join as part of registration.
To accommodate 50+ attendees, we adapted FSG’s Guide to the World Café Method by seating 5-7 participants per table. Participants were pre-assigned to tables based on their topic preferences and given individualized “Café Crawl Cards” outlining their table assignments for each round.
Each participant was provided with a handout that described the table topic and offered guiding discussion prompts. They were also given a marker to write down thoughts onto large butcher paper placed on each table to capture key ideas.
Members of our team facilitated discussions, encouraged attendees to jot down notes, and took notes themselves. We then compiled and summarized discussions.
What We Learned
Pre-assignments: Pre-assigning participants according to their preferred discussion topics allowed us to manage table size and ensure that the discussion topics aligned with interest. It also helped to streamline transition time between rounds, as participants did not need to make in-the-moment decisions about where to go next. The downside of this process was that it was a significant coordination effort, requiring time, attention to detail, and “game-day” decision-making.
Host roles and note taking: We tested two approaches to capturing table discussions as part of session planning. In the first, the table host recorded key points on chart paper. In the second, participants wrote and sketched their ideas directly on large sheets of butcher paper at each table, while the host took supplementary notes on a laptop. While both methods had advantages and limitations, we chose the second approach. In retrospect, this method allowed us to gather richer documentation, including creative doodles and diagrams that participants developed as conversations unfolded.
Format clarity: Upon reviewing feedback from the event, we came to understand that the term “World Café” implied for some that a content expert would be present at each discussion table, as done in “Expert Roundtable” formats. It may be worth considering ways to clarify the intended format or to name this type of session “Conversation Café” in future.
Introductions: Table hosts took different approaches to participant introductions. Some began with a round of introductions, while others moved directly into the discussion. Several participants shared that they appreciated knowing who was at the table and what perspectives were represented. In future sessions, we would likely encourage table hosts to include brief introductions to help participants quickly situate themselves within the group without taking away from discussion time.