Using a Co-Creative Process to Develop Information Videos on Transition Care: Process, Outcomes, and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition from pediatric to adult healthcare settings often represents a challenging and difficult period of life for youths with chronic illnesses. It represents a change of context at a time when several social, psychological, and physiological changes related to adolescence co-occur. Lack of preparation, information, coordination between pediatric and adult settings, and support were, and still are, frequently cited issues. As an interdisciplinary team of health researchers in ethics and pediatrics, we became attuned to potential value discrepancies between established transition programs – which tend to stress the value of independence and autonomy – and local social and clinical realities. The objective of better integrating youth perspectives about their own well-being and flourishing into transition program development led us to undertake a mixed-method study (e.g., interviews, surveys) and a partly participatory research project. In this paper, we report specifically on the participatory process, experience, and procedural outcomes (based on the evaluation of the experience by youths) of co-creating videos with youths. Overall, the co-creative video process was successful in producing six distinctive videos with the support of a professional videographer. The evaluation of participating youths also suggests that the experience was overwhelmingly positive, fostering a sense of belonging (breaking isolation), and empowering them as agents of information and change throughout the process. We elaborate on the benefits of co-creative participatory research based on our experience and then further discuss the realities of undertaking such a co-creative project. As a resource, the videos produced could help raise needed awareness of various aspects of transition care for youths with chronic illnesses.
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 | 0.048 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".