MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406802132 · doi:10.1186/s43058-025-00695-z

Let us be heard: critical analysis and debate of collaborative research approaches used in implementation science research with equity-deserving populations

2025· article· en· W4406802132 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCommunity-based participatory researchCINAHLEquity (law)Health equityPsychological interventionPopulationPublic relationsScholarshipSociologyHealth careEmpowermentPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Implementation Science research completed with equity-deserving populations is not well understood or explored. The current opioid epidemic challenges healthcare systems to improve existing practices through implementation of evidence-based interventions. Pregnant persons diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) is an equity-deserving population that continues to experience stigmatization within our healthcare system. Efforts are being made to implement novel approaches to care for this population; however, the implementation research continues to leave the voices of pregnant persons unheard, compounding the existing stigma and marginalization experienced. METHODS: This debate paper highlights a specific case that explores the implementation of the Eat, Sleep, Console (ESC) model of care, a function-based empowerment model used to guide the care for pregnant persons diagnosed with OUD and their infants. We establish our debate within the conceptual discussion of Nguyen and colleagues (2020), and critically analyze the collaborative research approaches, engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production, participatory research and IKT, within the context of engaging equity-deserving populations in research. We completed a literature search in CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Embase using keywords including collaborative research, engagement, equity-deserving, marginalized populations, birthparents, substance use and opioid use disorder with Boolean operators, to support our debate. DISCUSSION: IKT and Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPR) were deemed the most aligned approaches within the case, and boast many similarities; however, they are fundamentally distinct. Although CBPR's intentional methods to address social injustices are essential to consider in research with pregnant persons diagnosed with OUD, IKT aligned best within the implementation science inquiry due to its neutral philosophical underpinning and congruent aims in exploring complex implementation science inquiries. A fundamental gap was noted in IKT's intentional considerations to empowerment and equitable engagement of equity-deserving populations in research; therefore, we proposed informing an IKT approach with Edelman's Trauma and Resilience Informed Research Principles and Practice (TRIRPP) Framework.

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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.535
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.110 · 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