Evaluating the impact of engaging older adults and service providers as research partners in the co-design of a community mobility-promoting program: a mixed methods developmental evaluation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Increasingly researchers are partnering with citizens and communities in research; less is known about research impacts of this engagement. EMBOLDEN is an evidence-informed, mobility-promoting intervention for older adults co-designed by a 26-person Strategic Guiding Council (SGC) of health/social service providers and older adult citizens. This study evaluated research partners’ perceptions of engagement strategies, the engagement context, strengths, areas for improvement, as well as the impacts of the guiding council on older-adult identified priority areas. Methods This study was guided by developmental evaluation, working in partnership with four older adult SGC members who helped to set evaluation priorities, decide methods, and adapt patient-centred evaluation tools. Data sources included a questionnaire, focus groups and document analysis of meeting notes from 16 SGC meetings that took place between December 2019 and February 2022. A thematic approach to analysis guided the coding of focus group transcripts and SGC meeting notes. Convergent mixed methods guided the integration and presentation of qualitative and quantitative data sources in a joint display of evaluation results. Results Of 26 SGC members, nine completed the evaluation squestionnaire, and five participated in focus groups. Around two thirds of the SGC commonly attended each meeting. EMBOLDEN’s SGC was structured to include a diverse group (across gender, ethnicity and discipline) of older adults and service providers, which was perceived as a strength. Engagement processes were perceived as inclusive and well-facilitated, which stimulated discussion at meetings. Advantages and disadvantages of engaging with the SGC virtually, as compared to in-person (as was the case for the first 3 SGC meetings) were also discussed. Impacts of the SGC were identified across preparatory, execution phase and translational stages of research. Impacts of SGC involvement on members were also described. Conclusion Older adult research partners played an important role designing, implementing, and evaluating co-design approaches in this study. Older adults and service providers can make important contributions to the design, delivery and sharing results of health research through their lived expertise and connections to community. This project contributes to the growing field of citizen and community engagement in research by offering a participatory approach to engagement evaluation that considers diversity, satisfaction, and impact.
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 | 0.165 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".