MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405543108 · doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00659-y

Engaging Red River Métis families in Manitoba in the development of child health resources – findings from a qualitative study

2024· article· en· W4405543108 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Knisley, S. Michelle Driedger, Lisa Hartling, Frances Chartrand, Julianne Sanguins, Shannon D. Scott

Notice bibliographique

RevueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Établissements canadiensUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesChildren's Hospital FoundationUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children’s Hospital Foundation
Mots-clésParticipatory action researchThematic analysisIndigenousQualitative researchPublic relationsSociologyCitizen journalismGovernment (linguistics)Transparency (behavior)PsychologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Most research that includes Red River Métis tends to be pan-Indigenous. Grouping Métis with First Nations and Inuit can diminish their unique and diverse experiences, as well as distinctions-based approaches. Taking a step toward addressing this problem, the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF; the national government of the Red River Métis) invited researchers within the Canadian network Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids to partner in this research, which focuses on understanding engagement strategies that can help expose Red River Métis parents to child health research opportunities and build trust and transparency amongst research partners and participants. A qualitative descriptive approach underpinned by a participatory paradigm guided this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 Red River Métis parents and Elders via Zoom or telephone. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to explore patterns and themes across the data. Analysis generated four themes: (a) show me why you are here; (b) make it easier for me to take part; (c) create welcoming spaces; and (d) it should be a give and take experience. Parents emphasized the importance of kinship and personal connections, and said they want to hear about child health study opportunities from trusted organizations. They want researchers to be transparent about their research motivations and to offer multiple ways to participate to help them fit research into their busy lives. Relational approaches within the research process (e.g., creating informal/welcoming environments, gathering over food, fostering shared learning/creative opportunities) are prominent in the findings. There is a dearth of research focused on the distinct experiences of Red River Métis families. Engaging Red River Métis parents early in the research process will help incorporate their preferences and perspectives into the design of a larger project to adapt child health resources. More training is needed to help researchers improve their abilities to engage in self-reflection, listen, recognize power relationships, and demonstrate trust and transparency in each research interaction. It is only through respectful and successful engagement that child health research can be relevant, applicable and positively impact Red River Métis children, families and communities. Most research involving Red River Métis tends to group them together with First Nations and Inuit, which can overlook their unique experiences. To address this, the Manitoba Métis Federation (the national government for the Red River Métis) invited us to collaborate on a study. This research focuses on finding ways to engage Red River Métis parents/families in child health research, aiming to build trust and openness between research teams and participants. We interviewed 19 Red River Métis parents and Elders in the Canadian province of Manitoba. We asked them how to improve access to and participation in child health research. We analyzed the data to identify common themes and patterns. Four main themes emerged: (a) show me why you are here; (b) make it easier for me to take part; (c) create welcoming spaces; and (d) it should be a give and take experience. Parents stressed the importance of personal connections and wanted to hear about child health research opportunities from trusted sources. They wanted transparency from researchers about their motives and flexible participation options due to their busy lives. Building relationships during research is important, such as through informal gatherings and shared learning experiences. Researchers need more training to reflect on their own biases, listen effectively, and foster trust and transparency in their interactions. Engaging Red River Métis parents early in the research process is crucial to incorporating their views into a larger project to adapt child health resources.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,037
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,606
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0370,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,165
Tête enseignante GPT0,443
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResearch Involvement and EngagementMême sujetIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsTravaux en français237 207