Patient Partner Perspectives: The Experience of Participating in a Co-Designed Virtual Reality Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient partners (PP) are well positioned to make meaningful contributions to healthcare through their lived experiences and personal narratives. However, researchers must ensure that patients are engaged authentically and collaboratively in knowledge generation. As part of a larger project, 4 PP were engaged in the co-design of a virtual reality video aimed at promoting an understanding of patients' lived experience with COVID-19 during the initial phase of the pandemic. This paper reports on findings from follow-up evaluation interviews with PP about their experiences participating in this project. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in 2 major themes as well as facilitators and barriers to PP engagement. Primary reasons to participate in the project were to contribute and give back to the community and make a difference for patients impacted by COVID-19. Engagement resulted in positive experiences and impacts for PP. Facilitators to engagement included feeling heard, being valued, and treated with respect. Barriers included length of time required to complete the project as well as PP health status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".