MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405543108 · doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00659-y

Engaging Red River Métis families in Manitoba in the development of child health resources – findings from a qualitative study

2024· article· en· W4405543108 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Knisley, S. Michelle Driedger, Lisa Hartling, Frances Chartrand, Julianne Sanguins, Shannon D. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren's Hospital FoundationUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children’s Hospital Foundation
KeywordsParticipatory action researchThematic analysisIndigenousQualitative researchPublic relationsSociologyCitizen journalismGovernment (linguistics)Transparency (behavior)PsychologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most research that includes Red River Métis tends to be pan-Indigenous. Grouping Métis with First Nations and Inuit can diminish their unique and diverse experiences, as well as distinctions-based approaches. Taking a step toward addressing this problem, the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF; the national government of the Red River Métis) invited researchers within the Canadian network Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids to partner in this research, which focuses on understanding engagement strategies that can help expose Red River Métis parents to child health research opportunities and build trust and transparency amongst research partners and participants. A qualitative descriptive approach underpinned by a participatory paradigm guided this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 Red River Métis parents and Elders via Zoom or telephone. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to explore patterns and themes across the data. Analysis generated four themes: (a) show me why you are here; (b) make it easier for me to take part; (c) create welcoming spaces; and (d) it should be a give and take experience. Parents emphasized the importance of kinship and personal connections, and said they want to hear about child health study opportunities from trusted organizations. They want researchers to be transparent about their research motivations and to offer multiple ways to participate to help them fit research into their busy lives. Relational approaches within the research process (e.g., creating informal/welcoming environments, gathering over food, fostering shared learning/creative opportunities) are prominent in the findings. There is a dearth of research focused on the distinct experiences of Red River Métis families. Engaging Red River Métis parents early in the research process will help incorporate their preferences and perspectives into the design of a larger project to adapt child health resources. More training is needed to help researchers improve their abilities to engage in self-reflection, listen, recognize power relationships, and demonstrate trust and transparency in each research interaction. It is only through respectful and successful engagement that child health research can be relevant, applicable and positively impact Red River Métis children, families and communities. Most research involving Red River Métis tends to group them together with First Nations and Inuit, which can overlook their unique experiences. To address this, the Manitoba Métis Federation (the national government for the Red River Métis) invited us to collaborate on a study. This research focuses on finding ways to engage Red River Métis parents/families in child health research, aiming to build trust and openness between research teams and participants. We interviewed 19 Red River Métis parents and Elders in the Canadian province of Manitoba. We asked them how to improve access to and participation in child health research. We analyzed the data to identify common themes and patterns. Four main themes emerged: (a) show me why you are here; (b) make it easier for me to take part; (c) create welcoming spaces; and (d) it should be a give and take experience. Parents stressed the importance of personal connections and wanted to hear about child health research opportunities from trusted sources. They wanted transparency from researchers about their motives and flexible participation options due to their busy lives. Building relationships during research is important, such as through informal gatherings and shared learning experiences. Researchers need more training to reflect on their own biases, listen effectively, and foster trust and transparency in their interactions. Engaging Red River Métis parents early in the research process is crucial to incorporating their views into a larger project to adapt child health resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207