Assessing the benefits of participatory research: a rationale for a realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory research (PR) experts believe that increased community and stakeholder participation in research augments program pertinence, quality, outcome, sustainability, uptake, and transferability. There is, however, a dearth of assessments and measurement tools to demonstrate the contribution of participation in health research and interventions. One systematic review of PR, conducted for the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ), provided no conclusive evidence concerning the benefits of community participation to enhance research and health outcomes. To overcome methodological gaps and barriers of the AHRQ review, we propose to conduct a systematic realist review, which can be understood as a theory-driven qualitative review capable of capturing the often complex, diffuse and obtuse evidence concerning participation. Reviewing how PR mechanisms and contextual factors mediate and moderate outcomes, the review will generate and test hypotheses (middle-range theories) conceptualizing the benefits of participation and will portray the manner and circumstances in which participation influences outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.679 | 0.687 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".