Toward a Patient-Centered Approach: Incorporating Principles of Participatory Action Research Into Clinical Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Despite the shift to patient-centered care in recent years, many clinical studies continue to reinforce the traditional researcher/subject relationship. In contrast, action research engages study participants in a collaborative relationship with researchers. OBJECTIVES: To review the benefits of adding a participatory component to an existing study with respect to (1) engaging participants in the research process to clarify and validate qualitative findings, (2) engaging participants in the change process to develop potential solutions for improving integrative cancer services, and (3) giving voice to the concerns of patients using complementary and alternative medicine. METHOD: Focus groups were used to clarify concepts arising from patient interviews and to provide a forum for participants to develop recommendations and facilitate dissemination. CONCLUSION: Our approach empowered patients by involving them in the research and in developing solutions for how health care providers, policy makers, and researchers can enhance an integrative approach to cancer care.
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 | 0.378 | 0.264 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".