Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Institutes for Health Research launched a national 'Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research' (SPOR) in 2011. Patient-oriented research is defined as a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patient-identified priorities, and improves patient outcomes. Capacity development is a core element of SPOR. Barriers to patient-oriented research include unfamiliarity with the research process for patients and families and unfamiliarity with the methods of patient and family engagement for researchers. METHODS: The aim of the Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) is to build capacity in patient-oriented research in child health among patients and families, researchers, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and trainees through a curriculum delivered via a series of interactive online modules (e-learning). A multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder steering committee, which included patients and families, guided the development of the curriculum and provided feedback on individual modules. The content, design, and development of each module were co-led by a parent and researcher in an equal partnership. RESULTS: PORCCH consists of a series of five modules. All modules are interactive and include video vignettes and knowledge comprehension questions. Access to the modules is free and each module takes approximately 30 min to complete. The five modules are: Research 101 (an Introduction to Patient-Oriented Research, parts 1 and 2), Patient Engagement 101 (an Introduction to Patient Engagement in Child Health Research, parts 1 and 2), and Research Ethics 101. CONCLUSIONS: PORCCH was developed specifically to overcome recognized barriers to the engagement of patients and families in child health research. The aim of the curriculum is to build capacity in patient-oriented research in child health. The goal is for PORCCH to be a useful resource for all stakeholders involved in patient-oriented research: patients and families, researchers, healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and trainees.
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 | 0.021 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".