Determining the benefits and drawbacks of parents using personal connections and social networks for recruitment in research projects: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: It is becoming more common for parents of children with chronic conditions to join research teams as partners. Parent partnerships can help align research with what is relevant and important to families. It is also common for parent partners to be asked to share information about a study through their personal networks, which supports study recruitment. In this parent-led study, we explored parents' experiences when working together with researchers in patient-oriented research studies, in relation to study recruitment. METHODS: Demographic data were collected through a brief online survey (SurveyMonkey®) and analysed descriptively (n, %, median (interquartile range; IQR)). Qualitative data were collected through focus groups and interviews (July to October 2021), transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. Parent co-leads were involved in every stage of the study, including study design, recruitment, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and knowledge mobilization. RESULTS: Fifteen parents (n = 14 women) who had research partnership experience participated in this study. Most (n = 13) participants self-identified as White or of European descent. The majority (n = 10) had partnered in 1-3 research projects, while five participants had partnered in 4 + projects. Parents had a median of 3 years (IQR: 5) of partnership experience. We identified the following three themes: motivations, authentic partnerships, and learned decision making. Each theme included reflections about recruitment, and about research partnership in general. Motivations included a personal connection to the research topic, a connection to the community impacted by the research topic, and a desire to create change. Authentic partnerships were important for a meaningful experience, and enhanced participant's willingness and ability to share study materials. Learned decision making reflected parents' evolving decisions and practices related to sharing study information or personal information to support research. We provide a summary of participants' recommendations for researchers who work with parent partners, and recommendations for parents as they approach research partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences shared by parents who have partnered in research provide valuable information to inform recruitment methods and improve team functioning. Parent partners expressed a willingness to support recruitment and valued a strong research team working together for a common outcome. This study yields a set of recommendations guiding future research that engages parents as team members.
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 | 0,051 | 0,071 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».