Children’s participatory needs in injury prevention: reflections on supporting children’s right to invite and comfort in discussing sensitive topics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child-centred approaches in injury prevention emphasise the importance of practising bidirectional communications and decentring researcher-child power relations to support children's participation in research. To date, however, a dearth of scholarship offers methodological reflections on how to bolster children's feelings of comfort in discussing sensitive topics such as their injury experiences. GOAL: Drawing from lessons we learnt working with children in a low-income to mid-income neighbourhood in Vancouver, Canada, we discuss the ways in which our strategies to support their participation succeeded in, and at times fell short of, supporting their participatory needs. DISCUSSION: Our discussions focus attention on two important areas for consideration in future injury prevention studies: (1) Children's inclusion in research and the demand for them to share experience and (2) supporting children's right to invite and comfort in discussing sensitive topics such as injury experiences. We discuss the benefits of making research fun for children and being sensitive to their needs at preliminary recruitment and data collection stages. IMPLICATIONS: These discussions can strengthen researchers' work with children by helping them to reflect on strategies that can bolster their desire to participate and feel comfortable sharing perspectives.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".