MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283013923 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059689

Evaluation of parent and youth experiences in advisory groups as part of a mental healthcare clinical trial: protocol for a mixed-method study

2022· article· en· W4283013923 on OpenAlexafffund
Jananee Rasiah, Stephen B. Freedman, Lee MacDonald, Kassi Prisnie, Mohamed Eltorki, Yaron Finkelstein, Gareth Hopkin, Maria Santana, Jennifer Thull‐Freedman, Antonia Stang, Matthew Prebeg, Isabelle Gagnon, Margaret Steele, Ahmed Mater, Laurence Y. Katz, Brian Greenfield, Laurie H. Plotnick, Suneeta Monga, Ellen L. Lipman, Bruce Wright, Gina Dimitropoulos, Robert Porter, Katrina Hurley, Yazid N. Al Hamarneh, Amanda S. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of ManitobaMemorial University of NewfoundlandMontreal Children's HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthStollery Children's HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaInstitute of Health EconomicsMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health ServicesSickKids FoundationUniversity of SaskatchewanHospital for Sick ChildrenMcGill UniversityAthabasca UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Mental healthAlternative medicineFamily medicineHealth careClinical trialMental healthcarePublic healthMedical educationNursingPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patient engagement in healthcare research is a necessity to ensure that research objectives align with priorities, outcomes and needs of the population under study, and to facilitate ease of implementation and adoption of findings. In clinical trials, there is an increasing focus on patient engagement during the planning and conduct of clinical trials due to the potential for ethical and methodological benefits. As patient engagement in clinical trials increases, there is a need to evaluate the approaches of these activities to contribute evidence on what is most appropriate and successful. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient engagement processes and the activities of patient partners during and after a paediatric mental healthcare trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a mixed-methods study design, we will evaluate patient partners' engagement activities across set time-points during the trial and after trial completion. In this study, the term 'patient partner' is inclusive of two groups of people with lived experience: (1) caregivers (parents, formal/informal caregivers and family), and (2) youth (aged 15-24 years). Engagement will be evaluated using the participant and project questionnaires of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET), followed sequentially by semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data from the PPEET questionnaire will be analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. Data from open-ended questions from the PPEET questionnaires and semi-structured interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from Athabasca University Research Ethics Board will be obtained for this project. Findings will be disseminated at both academic and public venues whether in-person or online, and using platforms that are caregiver and youth friendly. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04902391.

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)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.015

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 head0.814
GPT teacher head0.697
Teacher spread0.117 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207