Facilitators and barriers to the training and maintenance of young persons’ advisory groups (YPAGs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Increasing demands from public and private healthcare coupled with national initiatives in patient-oriented research has led to an increase in avenues to allow patients to be directly involved in research. In particular, the push towards participation of children and youth has resulted in the formation of pediatric patient advisory groups with broad partnerships and consultation requests across the globe. However, there is a lack of evidence to examine the challenges in formation and training of young persons' advisory groups (YPAGs) and management processes required thereafter. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: This study's purpose is to document YPAG formation and training protocols around the world, highlight common strengths, and evaluate pitfalls and challenges. The results from this study will subsequently inform the development of standardized training protocols for children and youth to be piloted globally. METHODS: In this study, 17 select YPAG team leaders from 7 countries were surveyed to determine current training techniques used within existing groups. 17 youth representatives and 16 team leaders were then interviewed to gather further qualitative data on facilitators and barriers that aid or prevent successful initiation and maintenance of these groups. Qualitative interview data was coded and analyzed using NVivo by two independent reviewers (SYC, VWLT). Any inconsistencies in thematic analysis was confirmed by a third reviewer (JB). RESULTS: The most common training topics include consent and assent (64.71%), clinical trials (64.71%), and patient safety (70.59%). There are significant discrepancies to the amount of training received by each team. Most YPAGs out of the 17 groups receive no formal training (58.82%) while training sessions in the remaining 7 groups vary in both duration and frequency. Collectively, meetings ranged from 15 minutes to 6 hours long, with the majority of team meetings being 2-3 hours long (58.82%). The most common training facilitators are a positive relationship with a local hospital (82.35%) and access to a dedicated team coordinator (64.71%). 70.59% of team leaders identified a lack of access to appropriate educational materials available as a drawback to the impact of their YPAG, making this the greatest common barrier. CONCLUSION: Bringing children and youth to the forefront of paediatric trials and clinical research facilitates appropriate patient representation in subsequent research decision-making. There is an urgency to create and implement standardized protocols for the training of children and youth, especially in preparation for national and international research consultations. This low barrier framework may be of special interest to lower-middle-income countries who wish to encourage community participation in healthcare.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".