MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196061739 · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000001000

The Way Forward: Patients and Families as Members of the Research Team

2021· article· en· W3196061739 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberley Widger

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentenceMedicineInformed consentPsychologySocial psychologyAlternative medicineLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the early stages of my PhD research, I met 3 amazing parents of children who had died from life-threatening conditions. They took part in the first phases of my research, and then continued to provide advice as I ran into challenges. One of the ethics review boards insisted that the consent for a later stage of my research start with: “You are eligible for this research because you are the mother of a child who died.” I thought that sentence was a rather abrupt introduction but reached out for a second opinion from those parents. It was unanimous! We crafted new introductory sentences focused on the overall purpose of the research rather than eligibility. One of the parents wrote a letter explaining the negative emotional impact of being immediately faced with the sentence requested by the ethics board. We were allowed to divert from their protocol and start with the description of the study purpose. It was my first taste of the impact of having family members’ input on the research process rather than just having them take part in my research. Since then, I have endeavored to include family members in most of my research, but I am the first to admit that I have not always got it right. Getting feedback on specific aspects like consent forms is easy—but it does not take full advantage of all the wisdom families have to offer. Beyond the experience of being the family member of a child with a life-threatening illness, family members bring a range of personal and professional skills to the table. The challenge is in figuring out what those skills are and how to ensure meaningful involvement in the research team. Simply asking family members to join the research team meetings and jump in wherever they can is not a reasonable expectation. Inclusion of patients and family members as full members of the research team has been deemed critically important by several granting agencies.1,2 However, there may be particular challenges in enacting this goal in the area of palliative care—and pediatric palliative care more specifically. Through a recent systematic review, several barriers to involvement of patients and families in palliative care research were identified including the emotions and impact of involvement, a lack of training, role definitions, and power imbalance.3 Similar to concerns raised about asking patients and families to be research participants, researchers are concerned about overburdening patients and families, who may already be carrying a heavy load of caregiving or grieving, by asking them to join a research team. However, patients and families clearly indicate an interest in being involved in research, both as participants and as members of the research team.3 The critical piece is training for all team members—researchers, clinicians, patients, and family members—to ensure true collaboration, respectful interactions, the best possible experience for everyone, and a high-quality study that will ultimately lead to improvements in care. Fortunately, there are a growing number of opportunities for this type of training (eg, CanChild Family Involvement in Research Training Course,4 Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health5), which may end the trial-and-error approach to involving families and make incorporation of family members as full members of the research team easier for researchers and families who are just starting down this path. Our research needs to be relevant to all stakeholders—especially patients and families. They guide us in asking the right questions and doing the research in a respectful way, and they can also help share our results. In palliative care, change has been slow. Despite research showing the benefits of early integration of palliative care, referrals in the last days or even hours of life are still relatively common. Efforts to disseminate research to health professionals have not resulted in significant widespread change. Patients and families are far more numerous than health professionals, thus providing tools and encouraging patients and families to demand change may help us move forward. I recently came across “The Waiting Room Revolution”—a podcast focused on helping the public understand what the research says about palliative care and why such research is important.6 Most episodes include a family member sharing his or her experience in obtaining or receiving palliative care and the challenges faced in navigating the health system. These stories demonstrate the link between research and practice and help share findings with a wider audience that can truly bring about change. I believe that involvement of patients and families as full members of research teams right from generation of ideas through sharing of results is critically important in advancing the field of palliative care. However, to be most effective, we must learn to do it well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer NursingSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207