A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Public deliberation is an approach used to engage persons with diverse perspectives in discussions and decision-making about issues affecting the public that are controversial or value laden. Because experts have identified the need to evaluate facilitator performance, our research team developed a framework to assess the fidelity of facilitator remarks to key principles of public deliberation. OBJECTIVE: This report describes how the framework was used to assess facilitator fidelity in a 4-site public deliberation project on the acceptability of minor self-consent in biomedical HIV prevention research. METHODS: A total of 88 individuals participated in 4 deliberation sessions held in 4 cities throughout the United States. The sessions, facilitated by 18 team members, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Facilitator remarks were highlighted, and predetermined coding rules were used to code the remarks to 1 of 6 principles of quality deliberations. A variety of display tables were used to organize the codes and calculate the number of facilitator remarks that were consistent or inconsistent with each principle during each session across all sites. A content analysis was conducted on the remarks to describe how facilitator remarks aligned or failed to align with each principle. RESULTS: In total, 735 remarks were coded to one of the principles; 516 (70.2%) were coded as consistent with a principle, and 219 (29.8%) were coded as inconsistent. A total of 185 remarks were coded to the principle of equal participation (n=138, 74.6% as consistent; n=185, 25.4% as inconsistent), 158 were coded to expression of diverse opinions (n=110, 69.6% as consistent; n=48, 30.4% as inconsistent), 27 were coded to respect for others (n=27, 100% as consistent), 24 were coded to adoption of a societal perspective (n=11, 46% as consistent; n=13, 54% as inconsistent), 99 were coded to reasoned justification of ideas (n=81, 82% as consistent; n=18, 18% as inconsistent), and 242 were coded to compromise or movement toward consensus (n=149, 61.6% as consistent; n=93, 38.4% as inconsistent). Therefore, the counts provided affirmation that most of the facilitator remarks were aligned with the principles of deliberation, suggesting good facilitator fidelity. By considering how the remarks aligned or failed to align with the principles, areas where facilitator fidelity can be strengthened were identified. The results indicated that facilitators should focus more on encouraging quieter members to participate, refraining from expressing personal opinions, promoting the adoption of a societal perspective and reasoned justification of opinions, and inviting deliberants to articulate their areas of common ground. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide an example of how a framework for assessing facilitator fidelity was used in a 4-site deliberation project. The framework will be refined to better address issues related to balancing personal and public perspectives, managing plurality, and mitigating social inequalities.
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 | 0,299 | 0,291 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».