MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407605101 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088355

Exploration of trust in participatory health research partnerships across two timepoints: a network approach

2025· article· en· W4407605101 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan Gilfoyle, Jon Salsberg, Anne MacFarlane, Miriam McCarthy, Pádraig MacCarron

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of LimerickScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsGeneral partnershipContext (archaeology)Citizen journalismVulnerability (computing)VisionPublic relationsParticipatory action researchSocial network (sociolinguistics)Public healthCommunity-based participatory researchSocial network analysisMedicineValue (mathematics)SociologyNursingSocial mediaComputer sciencePolitical scienceComputer securitySocial capitalSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The value of a participatory approach to the generation of evidence for health and social services from a moral, methodological and policy level continues to gain recognition globally. Trust is a crucial mechanism in the participatory health research (PHR) process and is strongly influenced by context. However, gaps remain in conceptualising and operationalising trust over time in PHR partnerships. OBJECTIVE: This case study seeks to address these gaps by exploring the evolution of trust multidimensionally across two timepoints. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants in a PHR project called the Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) Ignite Network in Ireland (n=57 (T1); n=56 (T2)) were invited to complete a network survey at two timepoints. The PPI Ignite Network had local and national partners. NETWORK MEASURES: Several core social network measures were calculated at both timepoints to characterise the differences between trust dimensions and between local and national partners. RESULTS: Subtle changes were observed across most network measures over the two timepoints. While there was a slight decrease in the number of connections for each trust dimension throughout the PPI Ignite Network, connections that were consistently nominated in both timepoints increased slightly. Some trust dimensions, such as vulnerability and integrity, were more similar, while others, like integrity and shared values, visions and goals, differed greatly, where national partners consistently received more incoming connections compared with local partners. CONCLUSION: These findings (1) provide empirical support for using social network analysis to operationalise trust comprehensively and multidimensionally over time in a participatory partnership, (2) offer nuanced insights into the trust development process within the PPI Ignite Network and (3) enhance our understanding of trust in the community-based participatory research model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.018
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.925
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→