Methods for engaging vulnerable and marginalized children through community based participatory research: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an evolving approach that fosters equitable partnerships between researchers and community members. However, significant knowledge gaps and a lack of consensus remain regarding effective methodologies and frameworks for engaging marginalized pediatric populations in CBPR. This scoping review aims to examine studies that explicitly state the use of CBPR to engage marginalized pediatric populations, with a focus on understanding the methodologies employed, effectiveness and identifying key lessons learned. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across four databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The review followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and adhered to a protocol developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. Studies were included if they focused on engaging vulnerable and marginalized pediatric populations through CBPR and provided detailed descriptions of their methodologies. Multiple reviewers participated in all stages of the review and data extraction, with descriptive analyses conducted to examine methodological approaches. RESULTS: Of the 8671 unique studies identified, 46 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies targeted engagement with racial and ethnic minority populations, with few adopting an intersectional approach to define populations of interest or tailor engagement strategies. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States and published within the last 20 years. Common engagement methods included community partnership development, employing focus groups and interviews, convening advisory boards, and electronic participatory techniques, but there was little consistency in how these methods were defined or implemented. Evaluation of the effectiveness of CBPR methods was notably lacking. Researchers also highlighted significant challenges, including historical mistrust, logistical barriers, and limited resources, in engaging marginalized populations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need for more robust and standardized methodologies to engage marginalized pediatric populations in participatory research. We also need ongoing efforts centered on evaluating effectiveness. This review highlights existing gaps and barriers, providing insights to inform future research and the development of evidence-based frameworks for empowering and meaningfully involving marginalized communities in CBPR.
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 | 0.142 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".