Using community-based participatory research (CBPR) with ethno-cultural groups as a tool to develop culturally and linguistically appropriate asthma educational material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational interventions for new immigrants are usually developed without any input from the individuals involved. We examined how community based participatory research could act as a tool in the development of patient-related educational material to enhance the self-management of asthma within these communities. Concept development focus groups were used to uncover participants’ specific beliefs, issues, and concerns about asthma and its management. The analysis included systematically reading and reviewing the notes taken by the moderators, establishing categories of themes, and sorting responses into thematic categories. A total of 29 adult asthma patients of Latin American, Chinese, Iranian andPunjabi descent volunteered to participate in patient oriented group sessions. The purpose of these sessions was to gather input for the production of a series of asthma-related educational video clips and comprehensive pamphlets that were not only developed in a community’s specific language, but also reflected its cultural beliefs and practices. We found that focus group methodology is a useful strategy for developing culturally and content relevant educational interventions for members of new immigrant groups that are typically under represented in research about asthma and related issues in Canada. In an aim to fully understand the cultural and linguistic issues relevant to asthma patients from the target communities,we integrated and applied common concerns and barriers identified during the group discussions in the development of educational material.We uncovered elements that could be applied when broadening the narrow concepts of the health related educational interventions, including factors that are beyond the healthcare system’s original focus on the management of asthma in underserved communities. This allowed us to describe a range of research and extension activities suitable for participatory health education development that are both culturally and linguistically appropriate.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".