MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202049317 · doi:10.1186/s40900-021-00312-y

The voices of lived experience: reflections from citizen team members in a long-term care research program

2021· letter· en· W3202049317 on OpenAlexafffund
Jim Mann, Roberta Bishop, Graham Bond, Faye Forbes, Barbara Kieloch, Christine Thelker, Stephanie Chamberlain

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNova Scotia Health Research Foundation
KeywordsPerceptionPublic relationsMedical educationWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyHealth carePublic engagementPerspective (graphical)NursingMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a partnered health services research team that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in nursing homes. The TREC team undertook several activities to enhance the collaboration between the academic researchers and us, the citizen members. Known as VOICES (Voice Of (potential) Incoming residents, Caregivers Educating uS) we aim to share our experience working with a large research team. METHODS: We reflect on the findings reported in the paper by Chamberlain et al. (2021). They described the findings from two surveys (May 2018, July 2019) that were completed by TREC team members (researchers, trainees, staff, decision-makers, citizens). The survey questions asked about the respondents' experience with citizen engagement, their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of citizen engagement, and their unmet needs for training. RESULTS: The paper reported on the survey findings from all the survey respondents (research team, decision-makers, citizens), but much of the results focused on the researcher perspective. They reported that respondents believed that citizen engagement was a benefit to their research but noted many challenges. While we appreciate the researchers' positive perceptions of citizen engagement, much work remains to fully integrate us into all stages of the research. We offer our reflections and suggestions for how to work with citizen members and identify areas for more training and support. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased interest in citizen engagement, we feel there is a lack of understanding and support to truly integrate non-academic team members on research teams. We hope the discussion in this commentary identifies specific areas that need to be addressed to support the continued engagement of citizens and show how the lived experience can bring value to research teams.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0460.040
Scholarly communication0.0230.018
Open science0.0070.034
Research integrity0.0100.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.658
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207