Peer researchers’ experiences of a co-produced research project on supported decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundMaking decisions about your own life is a key aspect of independence, freedom, human rights and social justice. There are disabled people who, without support, would be assessed as incapable of making certain decisions but with the appropriate support are capable of making those decisions and so to not provide that support infringes their rights, undermines their autonomy and reinforces their exclusion from society. However, there is limited research evidence available about disabled people’s experiences of the range of approaches provided to support decision- making. This article will explore the experiences of four peer researchers who co-produced a research project on how people have, or have not been, supported to make their own decisions. Two of the peer researchers have experience of mental health problems and two are people with intellectual disabilities. MethodsThe peer researchers interviewed 21 people with mental health problems and 20 people with intellectual disabilities to gain an in-depth understanding of their experiences and preferences for how decision-making should be supported. Peer researcher experiences at each stage of the study from design to analysis were explored using data collected from the peer researchers via blogs written at early stages of the study, discussions at team meetings as the fieldwork progressed and at a final workshop at the end of the study which gave the peer researchers the opportunity to focus on their overall reflections of being a peer researcher. The article also discusses motivations to undertake the peer research role, the process of co-production and the challenges negotiated during the study. ResultsThe peer researchers reported a number of positive effects of being involved in the research project which included improvements in skills and self-confidence. ConclusionsThe peer researchers’ involvement challenged assumptions about the inability of people with intellectual disabilities and/or mental health problems to participate proactively in a research project whilst also highlighting the importance of training for all team members.
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 | 0.061 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".