Development of an adolescent advisory group to inform sexual and reproductive health research for first- and second-generation immigrant adolescents in Canada: A community-based participatory action research study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the growing evidence supporting the benefit of engaging adolescents in research, the active engagement of immigrant adolescents in research is limited. Further, when exploring the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of immigrant adolescents, utilization of adolescent advisory groups is finite. This study aimed to train and evaluate engagement of an adolescent advisory group (AAG) to inform SRH needs of immigrant adolescents in Canada. Methods: Using purposive sampling, 13 AAG members were recruited into this study. Members were trained in content related to SRH needs of adolescents and various research methodologies such as conducting a scoping review and qualitative interviews with adolescent participants. After 10 months of member engagement, their experiences were evaluated to identify areas of success and areas for improvement. These data were collected using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, which consisted of a Likert survey and open-ended questions, and analyzed in accordance to the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) framework. Findings: Ten members completed the evaluation survey. Likert survey responses were primarily positive. Majority of members showed positive demonstrations regarding various components of the PEIR framework, including contributions, support, research environment, and feeling valued. Conclusion: Findings illustrated that immigrant AAGs are constructive to informing SRH research. Not only can research teams benefit, but members are also empowered. This study provided the foundation for future immigrant adolescent engagement in research and knowledge translation, and effective means of evaluating engagement by utilizing the PEIR framework.
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 | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".