MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389920566 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/jspmu

Patient Engagement in a Canadian Health Research Funding Institute: Implementation and Impact

2023· preprint· en· W4389920566 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dawn P. Richards, Rosie Twomey, Trudy Flynn, Linda Hunter, Eunice Lui, Allan Stordy, Christine M. Thomas, Karim M. Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsGlycemic Index LaboratoriesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineRubricMandatePublic engagementExcellenceMedical educationPublic relationsMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patient engagement (PE) or involvement in research is when patient partners are integrated onto teams and initiatives (not participants in research). A number of health research funding organizations have PE frameworks or rubrics but we are unaware of them applying and reporting on their own PE efforts. We describe our work at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (CIHR IMHA) to implement, evaluate and understand the impact of its PE strategy.Methods: The Institute hired a PE specialist (who identifies as a patient partner) to design the strategy, its tactics, and timelines. A Patient Engagement Research Ambassador (PERA) group was convened of eight patient partners who lived with conditions represented by the Institute that meet monthly, co-created a mandate and terms of reference, and set priorities. Evaluating the PE strategy and understanding its impact was a collaboration between an external group and PERA. Results: In addition to convening PERA, the Institute produced a number of outputs (modules, video, publications, webinars, blog) to help in doing PE in research. One major output was a How-To Guide to Patient Engagement in Research entirely driven and designed by PERA. The How-To Guide is a series of free, virtual modules for different audiences used by 1,048 individuals to date. The evaluation and impacts of the PE strategy revealed positive impacts with some areas for improvement.Conclusions: Implementing a PE strategy within CIHR IMHA resulted in several PE activities and outputs with impacts within and beyond the Institute. We provide templates and outputs related to this work that may inform the efforts of other health research funding organizations. We encourage health research funders to move beyond encouraging or requiring PE in funded projects to fully ‘walk the talk’ of PE by implementing and evaluating their own PE strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.153
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1530.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0200.006
Scholarly communication0.0150.005
Open science0.0090.025
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.803
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.153 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→