Applying the principles of knowledge translation and exchange to inform dissemination of HIV survey results to adolescent participants in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely accepted that researchers have an obligation to inform survey participants of research results. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of various dissemination strategies. The emerging field of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) may offer insight given its focus on techniques to enhance the effectiveness of communicating evidence-based information. To date, KTE has focused primarily on information exchange between researchers and policy-makers as opposed to study participants; however, there are principles that may be relevant in this new context. This gap in the literature becomes even more salient in the context of public health research where research results can reveal particular misunderstandings or shortcomings in knowledge that threaten to severely compromise participants' health. The objective of this article is to describe how KTE principles were used to inform dissemination of results of a self-administered sexual health survey to adolescent study participants in a resource-deprived, peri-urban area of South Africa. Strategies for enhancing two-way information exchange included constructing interactive dissemination sessions led by young, isiZulu fieldworkers. We also employed techniques to create a safe space for dialogue, encouraged the shared ownership of results and crafted targeted messages. Particularly noteworthy was the benefit accrued by the research team through this process of exchange, including novel explanations for study findings and new ideas for future research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".