Identifying strategies and related principles supporting a co-design approach in an assistive device service delivery and research platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Possibilities Project Plus (PPPlus) is a free assistive device (AD) marketplace and research platform for persons with disabilities. The overall aim of PPPlus is to increase access to ADs through an integration of service, research and education. To maximize positive outcomes and reflect community needs a co-design approach informed by guiding principles of Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) was adopted, with examination of methods related to Experience Based Co-design. The integrated nature of PPPlus benefits from the use of specific engagement strategies that align with IKT principles to meet project objectives. The extent to which partnership and engagement strategies are specified in the rehabilitation research literature vary greatly and studies that provide information on specific strategies used to operationalize principles are limited. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a description of the co-design approach and the specific strategies that strive to achieve meaningful user engagement. By reflecting on these processes we also report on limitations and strategies for improvement. Methods: The co-design approach is highlighted through specific project activities including a representative governance structure, ongoing environmental scan and iterative Health Equity Impact Assessments (HEIA). The inherent engagement strategies that align with IKT and co-design principles are described. Discussion: The most impactful engagement strategies included early engagement of partners throughout all phases, ensuring project relevance across partners through alignment of objectives with complementary aims, using HEIAs to promote equitable outcomes from diverse stakeholders, the representative governance structure beyond individuals with disabilities and caregivers, and the use of experiences and stories to inform development. Next steps: This examination of specific strategies related to co-design focused on partnership engagement and informed targets for enhancement of the PPPlus initiative. These include being more intentional in developing a more rigorous process for evaluation that includes an assessment of strategies and their impact-especially as related to partner engagement. In addition, ongoing and enhanced efforts will focus on developing knowledge products that bring to life the most salient experience-based user stories emerging from the environmental scan with these being used to drive distinct co-creation events as well as serve other knowledge mobilization purposes (i.e., supporting policy change).
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 | 0.202 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".