Children's perspectives on the benefits and burdens of research participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation in research is associated with benefits and burdens for individual research participants. Children living with a chronic illness are considered particularly vulnerable as they are already burdened with symptoms of their illness. In particular contexts, such as learning health care systems (LHS), where research and clinical care are integrated, children with chronic illnesses may be asked to participate in research related to their illness. A growing body of literature has focused on children's perspectives as research subjects; however, a relatively understudied aspect concerns children's experiences of research in clinics where they are also patients. METHODS: We interviewed 25 Canadian children and adolescents living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) about their experiences of research participation. RESULTS: Our participants described aspects of the research process and particular experiences as benefits and others as burdens. Benefits included helping others, receiving incentives, receiving the results of previous studies, and participating in fun activities. Burdens included the time required for particular types of research, physical and psychological discomfort, and feelings of obligation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the experiences of children participating in research at a site that integrates research and clinical care. Our participants described experiences that often go unreported (such as feelings of obligation); we mention these as important considerations to be mindful of when interacting with children as (potential) research participants in an LHS and when thinking about research ethics protocols or the assent/consent process.
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 | 0.030 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".