Engaging youth and parents in clinical pediatric research: A case-based example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Youth and parent engagement is a key component of clinical research. There are many ways to actively and meaningfully engage youth and parents as integral members of research teams, for example, through ad-hoc committees, advisory councils, or as co-leads on projects. When youth and parents are actively and meaningfully engaged in research projects, they share knowledge from their lived experiences to improve the quality and relevance of research. Methods: We describe a case-based example of engaging youth and parent research partners when co-designing a questionnaire to assess preferences for pediatric headache treatments, from both a researcher and youth/parent perspective. We also summarize best practices in patient and family engagement from the literature and pertinent guidelines to assist researchers with integrating patient and family engagement into their studies. Results: As researchers, we felt that the integration of a youth and parent engagement plan into our study significantly altered and strengthened questionnaire content validity. We encountered challenges throughout the process and detailed these experiences to help educate others about challenge mitigation and best practices in youth and parent engagement. As youth and parent partners, we felt that engaging in the process of questionnaire development was an exciting and empowering opportunity, and that our feedback was valued and integrated. Conclusions: By sharing our experience, we hope to catalyze thought and discussion around the importance of youth and parent engagement in pediatric research, with the goal of stimulating more appropriate, relevant, and high-quality pediatric research and clinical care in the future.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".