MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307546399 · doi:10.35844/001c.38683

Practical Considerations for Engaging Youth With Lived And/or Living Experience of Substance Use as Youth Advisors and Co-Researchers

2022· article· en· W4307546399 on OpenAlexafffund
Roxanne Turuba, Sarah Irving, H. Rutherford Turnbull, Anurada Amarasekera, Amanda Madeleine Howard, Violet Brockmann, Corinne Tallon, Steve Mathias, Joanna Henderson, Skye Barbic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Participatory Research Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsFocus groupParticipatory action researchQualitative researchAccountabilityPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychologyYouth engagementYouth workContext (archaeology)Youth studiesMedical educationParticipant observationAction researchPublic relationsPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Although youth participatory action research (YPAR) has been gaining popularity in the context of substance use research over the last decade, few studies report on how to apply these methods effectively with youth. To address this gap, this paper describes how we engaged youth as advisors and research assistants in a qualitative research study, as well as our key learnings and practical considerations for engaging youth with lived and/or living experience of substance use. Methods We applied YPAR methods by partnering with youth from across BC who have lived and/or living experience of substance use to form a project youth advisory that co-designed the research protocol and materials. Three members became youth research assistants to facilitate focus groups and qualitative interviews with other youth with lived/living experience and peer support workers who work with youth, and support with data analysis and the dissemination of research findings. Mid- and end-point surveys were distributed to evaluate and improve our youth engagement methods over the course of the study. Results The positive impact of engaging youth with lived/living experience over the course of the study was reflected by study participant responses to the quality and relevance of the focus group/interview questions and positive experiences with the youth facilitators. Youth partners also described developing new skills in research, group facilitation, leadership, communication, and professionalism. Lessons learned and considerations for engaging youth in substance use research included: an equitable hiring process; proper compensation; communication, transparency, and accountability; safe spaces; flexibility; and youth capacity building. Conclusion This study demonstrates varying ways of engaging youth with lived and/or living experience of substance in research and how youth contributions can improve the relevance, quality, and validity of the research. Lessons learned from this study can be applied by other researchers considering engaging youth with lived/living experience or other marginalized populations.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.980
GPT teacher head0.821
Teacher spread0.159 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Participatory Research MethodsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207