Development and evaluation of a parent advisory group to inform a research program for knowledge translation in child health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to a growing movement to involve patients and community stakeholders in health research, we established a parent advisory group in 2016. The group meets regularly to act as advisors and partners for our research program. The purpose of this paper is to describe our experiences establishing the group, and results from parent evaluations. METHODS: We contacted 191 organizations to recruit parents and caregivers of children who wanted to contribute to child health research. Our initial goal was to recruit 8 to 10 parents who would meet regularly (approximately 8 times per year). We conducted an online baseline survey of members after the first two meetings to understand motivations for participating and early experiences. Sixteen months later we conducted another online survey to identify what was going well and areas for improvement. RESULTS: Twelve parents initially joined the group. The baseline survey (n = 9 complete) identified motivations for participation: wanting a patient/family voice in health research; personal experience accessing health system for child's care; wanting to improve healthcare communications. Concerns about participation included: having sufficient time to attend meetings; whether contributions would be worthwhile; and uncertainty about how the group's input would be used in practice. Parents identified aspects that were working well: opportunity to provide constructive feedback; diversity among parents involved; well-run and organized meetings (agenda and materials sent prior to meeting, skilled facilitation, adequate time for discussion). Items parents identified as not working well were: fluctuating attendance; not knowing others in the group; challenges if attending remotely. At follow-up, there were seven active members. The follow-up survey (n = 5 complete) identified positive feedback related to group dynamics (e.g., collegial, everyone participates) and organization of meetings. Suggestions for improvement included increasing membership, regular attendance, and providing adequate information/context to allow meaningful input. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience establishing a parent advisory group and evaluation of the group by parent members have yielded tremendous insights around involving parents and patient proxies in health research. The parent advisory group is a dynamic entity requiring ongoing communication between researchers and members. Effective means of evaluating engagement is essential to ensure it is meaningful. Dedicated time, funding and resources are required for success.
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 | 0.117 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".