Patient-oriented research– it’s personal: two BC SUPPORT unit patient partners sharing their journey in patient-oriented research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-oriented research is becoming an established way of healthcare research in Canada. It is supported by the Strategy for Patient-oriented Research (SPOR), launched by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. One core element of SPOR is the SUpport for People and Patient-oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Units, which is tasked to promote and facilitate patient-oriented research across provinces and territories in the country. Under the strategy, patient partners are welcomed and engaged as equal team members from the beginning to the very end of health research projects to share their lived experience with a medical condition and their interactions with healthcare systems. In this Commentary, two patient partners reflect on how they worked hand-in-hand with the BC SUPPORT Unit to co-develop activities to support patient-oriented research. This was achieved through mutual understanding, building trust, and staying true to SPOR values. Through a variety of roles - including serving on committees and working groups, initiating research projects, and participating in knowledge translation activities like webinars and conferences, the patient partners and the Unit grew stronger together. This commentary exemplifies how a national health research strategy can foster alliances, where individuals within an organization encourage and empower each other to drive progress in health research. Patient-oriented research is becoming an established mode of healthcare research in Canada. It is supported by the Strategy for Patient-oriented Research (SPOR), launched by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. One core element of SPOR is the SUpport for People and Patient-oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Units, which is tasked to promote and facilitate patient-oriented research across provinces and territories in the country. Under the strategy, patient partners are welcomed and engaged as equal team members from the beginning to the very end of health research projects to share their lived experience with a medical condition and their interactions with healthcare systems. In this Commentary, two patient partners reflect on how they worked hand-in-hand with the BC SUPPORT Unit to co-develop activities to support patient-oriented research. This was achieved through mutual understanding, building trust, and staying true to SPOR values. Through a variety of roles - including serving on committees and working groups, initiating research projects, and participating in knowledge translation activities like webinars and conferences, the patient partners and the Unit grew stronger together. This commentary exemplifies how a national health research strategy can foster alliances, where individuals within an organization encourage and empower each other to drive progress in health research.
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 | 0.031 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".