Empowering Refugee Voices: Using Nominal Group Technique with a Diverse Refugee Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) to Identify Health and Research Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite rising forced displacement globally, refugees’ health and research priorities are largely unknown. We investigated whether a diverse refugee committee could utilize participatory methods to identify health priorities and a research agenda to address them. Methods We conducted a qualitative study with focus groups of current and former refugees, asylum claimants and evacuees from a specialized refugee clinic over a year. We collected sociodemographic data using standardized instruments, then utilized a four-step nominal group technique process (idea generation, recording, discussion, and voting) to identify and rank participants’ health and research priorities. Participants ranked their top five priorities across three time periods: Pre-migration/early arrival (0–3 months), post-migration (3 months–2 years), and long-term health (>2 years). Participants created overarching priorities and corroborated findings via a member checking step. Findings Twenty-three participants (median age 35 years) attended one or more of five focus groups. Twenty-one completed sociodemographic surveys: 16/21 (76%) were women, representing 8 countries of origin. Participants identified “more family physicians” and “improving health system navigation” (11/60 votes each) as top health and research priorities respectively across all resettlement periods. Participants also prioritized pre-departure healthcare system orientation and improved post-arrival and long-term mental health services. Twelve participants completed the member checking process, affirming the results with minor clarifications. Interpretation This proof-of-concept study illustrates how refugees can use a rigorous consensus process without external influence to prioritize their healthcare needs, direct a health research agenda to address those needs, and co-produce research. These low-cost participatory methods should be replicated elsewhere. Funding Funded by the O’Brien Institute for Public Health at the University of Calgary.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".