43 Methods for engaging vulnerable and marginalized children through community based participatory research: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Community-based participatory research (CBPR) involves meaningful partnerships between researchers and community members. Effective CBPR practices create trust and enhance culture-centeredness of research. There are wide variations in how researchers have characterized CBPR and there is a literature gap in best practices for effectively engaging marginalized children in participatory research. It is critical that CBPR is not merely another method that primarily engages the privileged. Objectives To examine studies where researchers have used CBPR to engage vulnerable and marginalized paediatric populations, with the aim of understanding the specific methodologies utilized and determine best practices for CBPR with these populations. Design/Methods We conducted a scoping review using methods described by Arksey and O'Malley, and used PRISMA extension guidelines for scoping reviews in our process and reportings. We conducted a literature search, including grey literature, with the support of a librarian. Two team members reviewed each article during the title and abstract and full text screenings with conflicts resolved through group consensus discussions. We included English-language articles involving marginalized paediatric populations that thoroughly described their methods and focused on health. We collected information on study demographics, methodologies, and outcomes and used descriptive analysis and statistics, as well as thematic synthesis to explore patterns. Results The initial literature search identified 6240 studies, from which 44 articles met inclusion criteria for a full-text review. The articles primarily identified racial and ethnic minorities as vulnerable and marginalized populations to focus on. Few articles strategically considered an intersectional approach to defining the population of interest or in identifying the optimal method for engagement. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States and had been published in the last 20 years. The most commonly used methods of engagement included community partnerships, focus groups, interviews, advisory boards, and electronic participatory methods with little consistency in how these methods were employed and defined. There was a lack of evaluation data on the effectiveness of CBPR methods employed. Significant challenges and barriers to CBPR with marginalized populations were identified including difficulty building trusting relationships and financial and time limitations. Conclusion Our scoping review found gaps and lack of standardization in CBPR methods engaging marginalized paediatric populations. This can inform future research efforts and help to establish an evidenced-based framework for effective engagement for empowering and actively involving marginalized paediatric communities in CBPR.
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 | 0,115 | 0,233 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,039 | 0,030 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
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 ».