Youth and family members make meaningful contributions to a randomized‐controlled trial: <scp>YouthCan IMPACT</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are growing calls to engage service users in research about issues relevant to them. Youth and family members can make meaningful contributions to research projects, improving quality and relevance. However, more information is needed on the contributions that youth and family members can make to various study designs. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the contributions that youth and family members have made to a multi-site pragmatic randomized-controlled trial, YouthCan IMPACT, and the way project-based engagement learnings accelerated change at the institutional level and beyond. RESULTS: Youth and family members were full members of the project team, including the project's core governance and working groups. They contributed to project leadership, as funding co-applicants and as equal members of the governance team. They were also engaged in study design. Youth defined the primary outcome measure and contributed to decisions on all secondary measures. The service pathway was co-designed with youth and family members; for example, they guided the inclusion of peer support and a family member intervention as core service components. Study implementation contributions included ensuring a youth- and family-friendly research process and training research staff on working with youth and family members. Knowledge translation activities have included youth and family members as co-presenters and manuscript co-authors. The learnings from this trial have been leveraged to expand youth and family engagement at the institution and beyond. CONCLUSIONS: Youth and family members make substantial contributions to complex research projects, including randomized-controlled trials, thereby improving project design, study implementation, associated interventions, and knowledge translation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".