Engaging for equity: Lessons from a cross-sector partnership addressing prostate cancer risk in the black community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Black men are more likely to develop earlier and more serious diagnoses of prostate cancer compared to other men. Social and biological factors, such as lifestyle and ancestry, play a large role. Prostate cancer awareness and screening programs in areas with a large black population are important to control risk. Toronto, Ontario has the biggest black community in Canada and is an important place to make sure these programs are effective. A group of community members (doctors, researchers, and patients) from Toronto have come together to learn more about the local community needs and ways to improve awareness and community-based screening. This was the first time team members have worked in this way. This group has selected key lessons from their experiences working together. This includes how to build strong relationships with the local community, the importance of challenging assumptions and unconscious bias, and ways to include people with lived experience (patient partners) in research. These lessons can be a guide for other teams new to health equity work. Through this work, the team as developed creative ways to increase representation in research and assess the needs of Black men in local Toronto communities. Most importantly, these lessons should encourage those hesitant to work in areas leading to advancements in health equity. Black men are faced with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer worldwide, including earlier and more aggressive disease. While there are several known social and biological risk factors attributed to these trends, existing prostate cancer guidelines do not explicitly provide guidance for this group of men. A cross-sector partnership in Toronto, Canada has emerged to address the resulting health disparities through research, outreach, and education. The team benefits by having perspectives from clinicians, community partners, patient partners, and researchers and focuses on understanding predisposition to prostate cancer and the role of community screening. Importantly, working together for the purpose of addressing prostate cancer disparities has led to several important lessons that should be shared with others working in this space. These centre on strengthening community partnerships, confronting assumptions held by team members, and strategizing integration of patient partners as people with lived experience in research. This discussion also includes how the team has approached needs assessments for community-directed work as well as increasing representation in research using local cohorts. The lessons shared here are meant to encourage discourse for both cross-sector partnerships in research as well as health equity research and provide an opportunity to share experiences with others.
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 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 | 0,018 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,010 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».