An Evaluation of Parents’ Experiences of Patient Engagement in Research to Develop a Digital Knowledge Translation Tool: Protocol for a Multi-Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health-related research due to an ideological shift toward more equitable methods of knowledge development and an effort to increase the usability and relevance of knowledge by improving outcomes in clinical practice. Patient engagement includes simply informing patients to offering complete decision-making autonomy to individuals, groups, communities, caregivers, friends, and families who have personal experience and knowledge of a health issue. Despite the use of patient engagement methods in research, evaluation has lagged, resulting in a knowledge gap that makes it difficult to foster capacity and sustainability for patients and researchers alike since little is known about how effective patient collaborations in research are built, maintained, or improved. This study centers on pediatric functional constipation, a common condition that affects children and families. Since parents play a pivotal role in treatment, they are an optimal group to engage in improving the resources and support available to them. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use patient-engagement methods to establish a research collaboration with parents to cocreate a digital knowledge translation tool for parents caring for a child with functional constipation and formally evaluate the patient engagement processes within this project to build the science of patient engagement in research. METHODS: Members of the parent collaborator group will be recruited from previous participants who expressed interest in the development of a digital knowledge translation tool. The group will collaborate with the research team to create a tool to address patients' support and information needs when caring for a child with functional constipation. The parent collaborator group will then be evaluated in a multimethod study design. Data will be digitally and anonymously collected from all members of the parent collaborator group, using the validated Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) patient questionnaire. Descriptive statistics will be used to report group characteristics and question responses. Qualitative analysis will be used to understand open-ended question responses. Specifically, directed content analysis will be used to assess themes of the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) Framework with a combination of deductive and inductive analyses. Findings will be integrated into the discussion if there are sufficient commonalities and inter-relationships. The final manuscript will include reporting of each element as described by the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study criteria. RESULTS: Recruitment is planned for June 2020. Data collection for the evaluation of patient engagement processes will occur upon completion of the digital knowledge translation tool. The results of this study are expected to be published by the end of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide valuable information about parents' experiences participating in child-health research and is a fundamental step in building the science of patient engagement in research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/19108.
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 | 0.134 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.009 |
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".