A novel way to engage youth in research: evaluation of a participatory health research project by the international children’s advisory network youth council
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Few academic and clinical institutions identifying systematic methods of creating and subsequently evaluating the impact of youth-driven research programs. Little is known about the impact of a participatory approach in adolescent health research and the specific benefits youth derive from such experiences. This study evaluates the feasibility, benefits and limitations of an international participatory health research (PHR) project involving young patients as co-researchers.Methods: Youth co-researchers collaborated over the course of one year in a PHR project. A standardized feedback survey and qualitative interview were employed to evaluate the impact of co-researchers' personal and academic growth. Limitations were documented by the Council Chair in real time and included limiting events or identified challenges. Feasibility was determined by the percentage of youth members who actively participated, defined as 75% or more, and the outcome of a completed project.Findings: Sixteen adolescents aged 13-23 years representing 9 global academic institutions from the International Children's Advisory Network Youth Council participated as youth co-researchers (YCR). A difference was seen in the impact they believe youth can have in healthcare prior to and after involvement. 81% of participants reported interest in health research and 100% stating that they felt that their participation made an impact on pediatric healthcare. 75% of youth were interested in pursuing a career in healthcare prior to the project with no significant difference in results after participation.Interpretation: Youth reported growth in areas of cooperative learning and advocacy with tangible examples of improvements in leadership skill. This shift in roles from patient to research partner is echoed in the strong conviction of the newfound possibilities of accomplishment as a group. Further work is required in this area to more clearly define the impact of youth as PHR researchers.Funding Statement: The authors state: "No sources of funding to declare."Declaration of Interests: The authors state: "No conflict declared."Ethics Approval Statement: All materials were reviewed and approved by the Connecticut Children’s Medical Centre Institutional Review Board #18-081.
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 | 0.245 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".