The Use of Patient Engagement to Gather Perceptions on the Cost of Infant Feeding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Patient-oriented research (POR) and patient engagement (PE) has highlighted the value of incorporating patients' ideas and priorities in health research. Using the guiding principles of POR and PE, the current study conducted PE sessions to gain insight on the perceptions of mothers regarding the costs of infant feeding. Methods: Four patient engagement sessions were held with mothers residing in Newfoundland and Labrador between November 2019 and January 2020. Mothers were targeted through the Brighter Futures Coalition of St. John's, a not-for-profit community organization. PE sessions were designed in a two-hour format, allowing the research team to engage mothers and identify costs of infant feeding from a mothers' perspective. Results: Through the guiding principles of patient-oriented research and patient engagement, our research team successful engaged with mothers in discussions surrounding the costs of infant feeding. The sessions allowed for an in-depth discussion surrounding monetary costs (eg, incidentals of breast or formula feeding), the associated costs of infant feeding and the workplace (eg, perceived productivity) and environment impacts (eg, single use plastics). During each session, evaluations were provided to solicit feedback on whether the goals and expectations of mothers had been met, and whether they felt their opinions were heard and understood. Conclusion: By conducting patient engagement sessions, informed by patient-oriented research guiding principles, we were able to successfully recruit and engage mothers in discussions that led to a better understanding of their perspectives on the costs of infant feeding.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it