Development and evaluation of a parent advisory group to inform a research program for knowledge translation in child health
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In response to a growing movement to involve patients and community stakeholders in health research, we established a parent advisory group in 2016. The group meets regularly to act as advisors and partners for our research program. The purpose of this paper is to describe our experiences establishing the group, and results from parent evaluations. METHODS: We contacted 191 organizations to recruit parents and caregivers of children who wanted to contribute to child health research. Our initial goal was to recruit 8 to 10 parents who would meet regularly (approximately 8 times per year). We conducted an online baseline survey of members after the first two meetings to understand motivations for participating and early experiences. Sixteen months later we conducted another online survey to identify what was going well and areas for improvement. RESULTS: Twelve parents initially joined the group. The baseline survey (n = 9 complete) identified motivations for participation: wanting a patient/family voice in health research; personal experience accessing health system for child's care; wanting to improve healthcare communications. Concerns about participation included: having sufficient time to attend meetings; whether contributions would be worthwhile; and uncertainty about how the group's input would be used in practice. Parents identified aspects that were working well: opportunity to provide constructive feedback; diversity among parents involved; well-run and organized meetings (agenda and materials sent prior to meeting, skilled facilitation, adequate time for discussion). Items parents identified as not working well were: fluctuating attendance; not knowing others in the group; challenges if attending remotely. At follow-up, there were seven active members. The follow-up survey (n = 5 complete) identified positive feedback related to group dynamics (e.g., collegial, everyone participates) and organization of meetings. Suggestions for improvement included increasing membership, regular attendance, and providing adequate information/context to allow meaningful input. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience establishing a parent advisory group and evaluation of the group by parent members have yielded tremendous insights around involving parents and patient proxies in health research. The parent advisory group is a dynamic entity requiring ongoing communication between researchers and members. Effective means of evaluating engagement is essential to ensure it is meaningful. Dedicated time, funding and resources are required for success.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle