Commonalities and distinctions of pediatric patient and family engagement in clinical care, education, and research contexts: Protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric patient and family engagement is an active and collaborative process, that involves children, adolescents, and family members with lived experience contributing to the design, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare services. Prior studies have highlighted the patient engagement methods and impact in clinical care, education, and research. However, gaps remain in understanding the commonalities and distinctions of engagement approaches, patient/family partner roles, and outcomes in clinical care, education, and research contexts. Further, research examining the nuances of pediatric patient and family engagement within healthcare delivery, education, and research in pediatric institutions is needed to streamline efforts. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will identify the commonalities of and distinctions between pediatric patient and family engagement in clinical care, education, and research contexts in pediatric healthcare institutions. METHODS: A scoping review, conducted in collaboration with a team of adolescent, young adult, and family partners, will allow us to systematically map out key concepts, evidence, and knowledge gaps regarding pediatric patient and family engagement in clinical care, education, and research. We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute framework in the design and conduct of the review and guidance on engaging knowledge users within scoping reviews. The protocol for this scoping review has been registered with the Open Science Framework database (https://osf.io/63qx5). RESULTS: This study will describe the engagement types, approaches, and outcomes of pediatric patient and family engagement employed within clinical care, education, and research settings, highlighting commonalities and distinctions across contexts. In doing so, it will identify potential opportunities for collaboration and resource-sharing based on the context of engagement and provide needed clarity on streamlining pediatric patient and family engagement approaches within pediatric institutional settings. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the results will produce preliminary evidence of relevance to pediatric institutions seeking to consolidate engagement practices across clinical care, education, and research domains.
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 | 0.151 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.011 |
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".