Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The idea of including patient perspectives in health‐services planning and evaluation is increasingly embraced by Canadian health authorities. This article argues that the validity of a particular method is not simply a matter of its scientific rigour; rather, it depends on what one considers to be the meaning and purpose of patient involvement. Perspectives on patient involvement can be conceptualized in terms of a continuum from consumerism (patients as customers who deserve to be satisfied) to participatory democracy (patients as citizens with a right to participate in shaping public services). These ideologies are associated with different methods (market research versus participatory research) and, crucially, yield different results. Evidence from diverse sources suggests that, as methods move across the continuum towards participatory democracy, 1) participants move from expressing simple opinions to considering broader issues, context and complexity, and 2) participants' perspectives shift from individualism (personal interest) towards collectivism (common interest). As well, different approaches have different strengths and risks in terms of the ultimate goal of patient involvement: change to services. This article outlines the implications of the “politics of methodology” for decisions about how best to involve patients in the design and evaluation of health services. Sommaire : L'inclusion des perspectives des patients dans la planification et l'évaluation des services de santé est une idée à laquelle adhèrent de plus en plus les autorités sanitaires canadiennes. Le présent article soutient que la validité d'une méthode particulière ne dépend pas simplement de sa rigueur scientifique, mais plutôt de ce que l'on considère être la signification et le but de la participation des patients. Les perspectives sur la participation des patients peuvent être conceptualisées en termes d'un continuum, allant du consommateurisme (les patients étant considérés comme des clients qui méritent que l'on réponde à leurs besoins) à une démocratie participative (les patients étant considérés comme des citoyens ayant le droit de participer au façonnement des services publics). Ces idéologies sont associées à différentes méthodes (recherche de marché versus recherche participative) et, essentiellement, donnent lieu à des résultats différents. Comme le laissent entendre différentes sources, alors que les méthodes progressent dans la direction d'une démocratie participative, 1) les participants délaissent l'expression de simples opinions pour aborder des questions, un contexte et une complexité plus vastes, et 2) les perspectives des participants passent de l'individualisme (intérêts personnels) au collectivisme (intérêt commun). En outre, différentes approches présentent des points forts et des risques différents pour ce qui est de l'objectif ultime de la participation des patients, à savoir les changements à apporter aux services. Le présent article décrit brièvement les implications de la « politique de méthodologie » pour ce qui est des décisions concernant le meilleur moyen de faire intervenir les patients dans la conception et l'évaluation des services de santé.
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 | 0.765 | 0.567 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".