Engaging people with lived experiences on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of the research process to facilitate social change and increase research relevance. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a CBPR tool in which individuals with lived experience and community organisations are integrated into the research process and ensure the work aligns with community priorities. We seek to (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs and (2) identify the scope of literature on minimising power dynamics between organisations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: , and will be reported using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Grey literature references and reference lists of included articles published between 1 January 1990 and 30 March 2023 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts will be decided by consensus or a third reviewer. Thematic analysis will be applied in three phases: open coding, axial coding and abstraction. Extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. At this time, a preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval is not required for this review. Review findings will inform ongoing and future CBPR community advisory board dynamics. REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QF5D3).
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 | 0.208 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.019 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".