‘It reshaped how I will do research’: A qualitative exploration of team members’ experiences with youth and family engagement in a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engaging youth and family members as active partners in research and service design offers great promise in improving projects. In youth mental health, recent research has highlighted the value of youth and family engagement. However, research on the experience and impacts of engagement is sparse. OBJECTIVE: This study explores the project team's experience of youth and family engagement in the design and development of the YouthCan IMPACT randomized controlled trial and clinical service pathway design. DESIGN: Qualitative data collected using semi-structured interviews and a focus group as part of the YouthCan IMPACT clinical trial were analysed to understand the impacts of engagement. Twenty-eight team members were interviewed, including youth and family members. A qualitative content analysis was conducted, with a member checking process. RESULTS: Team members reported facilitators, barriers and impacts of youth and family engagement. Facilitators included a safe environment and strong procedures conducive to inclusion in co-design. Barriers included logistical, structural and institutional constraints. Overall, team members found youth and family engagement to be valuable and to positively impact the research and service design process. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Youth and family engagement played a critical role in research and clinical service pathway design. The team found that their involvement improved the quality of the research and service pathway through sustained and multifaceted engagement. Facilitators and barriers to engagement may serve to guide future engagement initiatives. Future research should evaluate the long-term impact of early engagement and further focus on family engagement. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Youth and family members were engaged in the data analysis and interpretation 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 | 0.362 | 0.449 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".