MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213854947 · doi:10.1186/s40900-021-00323-9

Beyond the role of participant: a firsthand account of the experiences of a patient-oriented research team

2021· letter· en· W3213854947 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsey Boechler, Steven Renwick, Abdullateef O. Alabi, Harold de la Torre, T. K. Susheel Kumar, Harmanpreet Singh, Roshan Xavier, Dalise Hector, Lauren McTaggart, Jennifer Shrubsole

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsPrairie Improvement NetworkSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePublic relationsLiteracyHealth literacyImmigrationFoundation (evidence)PsychologyMedical educationNursingMedicinePolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immigrants often find accessing and navigating the healthcare system difficult upon arriving in Canada. Existing challenges of accessing healthcare due to differing cultural norms, language barriers, limited health literacy, and system complexity have been outlined extensively in literature; however, evidence-informed practices to mitigate these disparities have yet to be determined. Our research team took a patient-oriented research (POR) approach to learn more about the lived experiences of immigrants as they attempt to access and navigate the health system upon immigrating to Canada. POR is a method that involves patients beyond the role of participant, recognizing the lived experiences of patients as expertise and empowering patient partners to drive research priorities. This approach empowers patient partners to steer the direction of research, ensuring the study is relevant and patient priorities are addressed. MAIN BODY: In this article, we define POR and share our team's experience of engaging in POR by providing a synopsis of team member recruitment, research priority establishment, and relationship building. We also share how joining forces with patient partners, rather than solely engaging with them as participants, benefits research endeavors and ensures patient priorities are addressed. Lastly, we present examples of how conducting POR leads to increased research capacity and personal growth for both patient partners and researchers. CONCLUSION: Building the foundation of this study through the perspectives of patient partners has provided insight into the difficulties immigrants experience when attempting to access and navigate the health care system that can only be understood through first-hand experience. Engaging patients as active partners on research teams enhances the potential of strengthened patient engagement, increased patient commitment to treatment, and leads to improved health outcomes. Furthermore, POR provides researchers, patients, and those serving the community at hand, an opportunity to learn from one another.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.018 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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