MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404808365 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6565

The Patient Voice is Value Added in Integrating Relational Equity into Practice

2024· article· en· W4404808365 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivian R. Ramsden, Brenda Andreas, Ghislaine Rouly

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Value (mathematics)PsychologyBusinessMathematicsPolitical scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: In response to a call initiated by CIHR in 2023, inviting patient, public, and community participation, the Patient Council of the Canadian Primary Care Research Network (CPCRN) responded with a Report on March 25, 2024. Strategic Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) finds and supports synergy between people with lived experience, communities, partners, health care providers, researchers and policy makers. Objective: The objective of the SPOR Refresh process is to define a renewed approach for/to delivering Canada’s SPOR that builds on successes to date while reflecting the evolving priorities of people with lived experience, community, partner, and health systems. Study Design and Analysis: This evaluation was informed by the integration of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and transformative action research and grounded in the culture of this community which is built upon relational equity and their pre-established values which are: trust, kindness, respect and humility. The analysis was undertaken using inductive thematic analysis within participatory analysis. Setting: The members of the CPCRN Pan-Canadian Patient Council engaged virtually while ensuring the values and relational equity were employed in each and every encounter. Population Studied: CPCRN Patient Council. Instrument: On-line survey created by CIHR for the SPOR Strategy Refresh. Outcome Measures: The co-creation of the Report to the SPOR Strategy Refresh from the Patient Council of the CPCRN was submitted as a separate Appendix of the CPCRN. Results: The Pan-Canadian Patient Council met electronically to co-analyze and interpret the themes. Some of the strengths identified were: involvement of dedicated people with lived experience (PWLE); built infrastructure that facilitated collaboration and knowledge exchange across Canada and around the world; and building relationships between all partners. Some of the opportunities for change identified were: the word “patient”, being an integral part of the all aspects of the research process; access to technology; timely compensation; and further integrating relational equity, relational accountability and servant leadership into practice. Conclusions: For the outcomes of research to be embedded into practice or for them to transform practice, they need to be grounded in the culture of the community. In this way, the potential power imbalances within and external to the research are more appropriately addressed.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.046
Scholarly communication0.0290.025
Open science0.0030.031
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.650
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.061 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Family MedicineSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207