Why do patient/caregiver partners feel like outsiders ? The research workplace culture as a deterrent to true partnership.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The Patient Advisors Network (PAN), was asked by the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) to contribute insights from the unique perspective of patient and caregiver partners to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Refresh process. PAN conducted a survey and two focus groups generating a wealth of data supporting the inquiry and analysis. PAN is a Canadian independent community of patient/caregiver partners who led the study through all phases. Objective: To gather insights from PAN members as well as the wider patient/caregiver partner community to learn of their experiences as partners in health research, to inform the Refresh process Study Design and Analysis: PAN conducted a survey with 262 Canadian respondents, covering every province plus the Northwest Territories and held two focus groups of 15 people. All aspects of this work were led and conducted by patient/caregiver partners. Setting: The survey and focus groups were conducted with people from across Canada. Population Studied: Patient/caregiver partners (people with lived and living experience) who had experience as partners in health research or were interested in becoming involved. Instrument: Results and suggestions were documented in a Report to CIHR and shared with research and patient/caregiver partner communities and networks Outcome Measures: Actionable suggestions on how to Improve patient/caregiver experiences in research. Results Analysis of the data highlighted a range of examples which collectively captured the experience of patient and caregiver partners feeling like outsiders. Taken together these are described as an unconscious cultural lens, part of the research workplace. These findings suggest this may be a deterrent to equitable partnerships when engaging patient/caregiver partners. Conclusions: This study will inform CIHR’s SPOR refresh plans and will help researchers, patients and decision makers interested in advancing patient partnerships in the broader health care ecosystem. The findings indicate further examination of the cultural lens is warranted.
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 | 0.075 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".