Young researchers’ reflections on workshops with youth to develop research recruitment materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contraception care is recognized as a basic human right, however, many individuals continue to face challenges in accessing adequate care. For youth, factors that influence access to prescription contraception include affordability, availability, acceptability, and youth awareness of these options. As a result, contraception uptake in Canada remains low, with 22.9% of sexually active 15 to 24-year-olds reporting that they did not use a condom or another form of contraception the last time they had sex. Collaborating with youth and meaningfully engaging them in all stages of the research process may help us better understand and develop solutions and services that yield stronger usability among youth. We engaged in a co-design process to involve youth in the generation of research recruitment materials. In this article, we offer a rich description of the experiences of youth as embedded researchers and contribute to the methodology of co-design research by highlighting specific characteristics in our approach that facilitated youth engagement. Through a series of six virtual workshops, four youth research assistants and eight youth advisors engaged in discussion activities that generated ideas for the recruitment materials for a research study called ‘Ask Us: Youth Voices to Improve Contraception Access’. Our strategies included the (i) Re-distribution of Power to Enable Youth Participation, (ii) Use of Technology to Promote Collaboration and Confidentiality and (iii) Emphasizing Reciprocal Knowledge Building, to facilitate meaningful youth participation. The co-design sessions resulted in the creation of the Ask Us study recruitment materials ( www.askusproject.ca ) and youth informed the chosen wording, colour scheme, images, and more. Our purposeful steps to involve embedded youth research assistants, acknowledge the differences and redistribution of power among researchers and youth advisors, use technology to promote collaboration and confidentiality and emphasize reciprocal knowledge sharing led to a meaningful co-design experience for us as youth research assistants. We argue that deeper considerations of accountability by academic researchers and embedded youth research assistants can further promote youth participation by enabling spaces where youth feel safe. Many youth face challenges in accessing contraception care. Factors such as affordability, availability, acceptability, and youth awareness of contraceptive options may create barriers for youth to access contraception. This has resulted in a low uptake of contraception among Canadian youth. Collaborating with youth to understand their experiences accessing contraception can help us develop solutions and services that yield stronger usability among youth. We invited youth advisors to participate in a co-design activity to generate research recruitment materials for a qualitative study called ‘Ask Us: Youth Voices to Improve Contraception Access’. This article was written from the perspective of four youth research assistants who also participated in the youth engagement activities before participant recruitment for this study. Through a series of virtual workshops, the youth advisors and youth research assistants developed research recruitment materials. We, the youth research assistants, reflected on the strategies used to encourage youth participation and identified the following themes: (i) Re-distribution of Power to Enable Youth Participation, (ii) Use of Technology to Promote Collaboration and Confidentiality and (iii) Emphasizing Reciprocal Knowledge Building. Following the co-design sessions, we created Ask Us study recruitment materials ( www.askusproject.ca ). Components of the recruitment materials, such as wording, colour scheme, images etc. were informed by the youth. We took steps to involve embedded youth researchers, acknowledge the differences and redistribution of power among researchers and youth advisors, use technology to promote collaboration and confidentiality and emphasize reciprocal knowledge sharing. Based on our insights as youth research assistants participating in this process, we conclude that the engagement activities led to a meaningful co-design experience for youth research assistants. In addition to these strategies, we encourage researchers to consider how they can remain accountable in creating co-design environments where youth feel safe.
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 | 0.023 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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".