“Who decides what criteria are important to consider in exploring the outcomes of conversation approaches? A participatory health research study”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: One of the most devastating consequences of aphasia is the disruption to normal conversation. The Conversation Partner Programme emphasises communicative competence and life participation. Currently there is no recognised system for evaluating this intervention. Following policy imperatives for patient and public involvement, it is important to include service users in the development of evaluation criteria. However, people with aphasia are often excluded from such research and service development initiatives because of their communication disability. This study was designed to include people with aphasia and other key stakeholders as co-researchers in the development of evaluation criteria for a Conversation Partner Programme.Aims: To describe the multi-perspectival co-generation of Conversation Partner Programme evaluation criteria using a participatory research approach.Methods & Procedures: Following a pilot study, the generation and analysis of qualitative data involved a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) approach based on the interpretive paradigm. Using purposeful sampling participants (n = 20) included: people with aphasia (n = 5); speech and language therapists (n = 5); speech and language therapy graduates and undergraduates (n = 9) and university coordinator (n = 1). Through (n = 18) individual and inter-stakeholder data generation episodes (PLA focus groups and interviews) using participatory techniques (Flexible Brainstorming, Card Sort, Direct Ranking, Seasonal Calendar), evaluation criteria were identified. The principles of thematic analysis guided the co-analysis of data with participants. Data generated in Ireland were presented to an international inter-stakeholder group at Connect, UK, for preliminary exploration of transferability of findings.Outcomes & Results: Conversation Partner Programme evaluation criteria agreed and prioritised by co-researchers in order of importance included: (1) shared understanding of structure, (2) clarity about the programme, (3) agreed evaluation mechanism, (4) linking with other organisations, and (5) feedback. “Shared Understanding of Structure” was ranked the most important criterion and related to the nature and number of participants, opportunities for group meetings, socialising, and stakeholder interaction. “Feedback”, the criterion ranked least important, detailed responsibilities about summarising programme experiences and sharing this information between stakeholders.Conclusions: People with aphasia and other key stakeholders were meaningfully involved in the identification of evaluation criteria for a Conversation Partner Programme. The outcomes of this collaborative work bridge the gap between policy imperatives around involvement and actual practice and will impact the design, delivery, and evaluation of the programme for all stakeholders. Findings will be of interest to professionals in this clinical area and to those exploring innovative methodologies to include marginalised service users, especially people with communication disabilities in research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,280 | 0,219 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,023 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».