Patient-oriented research: A qualitative study of research involvement of parents of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-oriented research engages patients and caregivers as partners contributing to all phases of the research process. This was the goal of the Strongest Families Institute Neurodevelopmental research, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, when they included a parent advisory committee, made up of parents and caregivers of children and adolescents with a neurodevelopmental condition, to complete their research project. The purpose of this qualitative research was to examine the experiences of researchers and parents of children with a neurodevelopmental condition who participated on a research study advisory committee for the Strongest Families Neurodevelopment research project. From interviews with both parents/caregivers and researchers that played a role on the advisory committee, four major themes emerged on how to negotiate and navigate their time on the committee and what worked well and what did not. This led to recommendations for future researchers and patients who may create or be a part of an advisory committee.
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 | 0.047 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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; 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".