Contributions and recognition of patient partners in pediatric health research: A rapid scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is an increasingly common approach that actively engages patients and families in the research process. Despite their significant contributions, patient-partners are rarely credited in academic publications through formal acknowledgment or authorship, and the lack of standardized documentation of their participation makes it difficult to locate patient-engaging studies. There is a limited understanding of how patient-partners are currently being engaged particularly within pediatric health research, and whether their involvement is adequately recognized. Clarifying these processes will strengthen POR in pediatrics to foster more meaningful collaboration and ultimately help improve health outcomes for children and their families. The objective of this rapid scoping review is to: 1) assess the prevalence of acknowledgement and authorship of patient partners in pediatric health research; 2) understand how patient partners contribute through the research process; and 3) assess how patient engagement is identified in publications. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). In addition, we will search key sources of POR literature. Findings from this scoping review can be used to inform future patient-oriented research and guide the appropriate recognition of patient partner authors.•This rapid scoping review will map how patient partners are recognized for their contributions to pediatric research and how they are engaged throughout the research process•Aim is to provide an evidence base to guide appropriate recognition of patient partner authors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.206 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.016 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".