Engaging People With Lived Experience of Dementia in Research: Perspectives From a Multi-disciplinary Research Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient and public involvement/engagement in research on dementia is not new, but it is becoming increasingly common. The objective of this study was to describe researchers' knowledge, attitudes, and activities related to engaging people with lived experience of dementia in research, and how these differ by research theme. Methods: Data were from an online, anonymous survey of researchers within the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging. Results: Of the 84 researchers who completed the survey (response rate: 27%), 89% agreed they understood the meaning of engaging people with lived experience in research, although this was lower among biomedical researchers. Almost all (93%) agreed that people with lived experience could contribute meaningfully to research, and nearly two-thirds were already incorporating engagement in their research. Some engagement practices reported differed by research theme. Irrespective of the type of research they conduct, researchers were most often motivated by improving the relevance and quality of their research. Conclusions: These findings support an optimistic outlook for engaging people with lived experience of dementia in research, but identify differences across research themes. Understanding approaches to incorporate, evaluate, and adapt engagement activities across research disciplines are needed to enable researchers, as well as others involved in research, to develop and target strategies for patient and public involvement/engagement in research on dementia.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".