Engaging People with Lived Experiences on Community Advisory Boards in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Scoping Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of a research process to facilitate social change, provide education to improve community practices and increase relevance of research, with the goal of improving community health and mitigating health disparities. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a tool utilized in CBPR, in which individuals with lived experience and community organizations are integrated into the research process, and ensure the work captures the priorities of the community under study. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on approaches used to engage people with lived experiences on community advisory boards We seek to: (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs; and to (2) identify the scope of literature on minimizing power dynamics between organizations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. The current scoping review also aims to inform the CAB structure of the I-CREAte (Innovations for Community Resilience, Equity and Advocacy) team, a CBPR group formed in 2020 to conduct action-oriented research within Kingston, Ontario and the surrounding region. Methods and analysis: This scoping review will follow the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley and informed by Levac et al. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews tool will be utilized for reporting. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO in consultation with an expert librarian at Queen’s University. Additionally, grey literature references and reference lists of included articles were considered. This scoping review will include studies conducted between 1990 and 2022 addressing the engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs in CBPR and best practices to effectively recruit and engage people with lived experience on CABs. Two reviewers will independently screen references using Covidence software in two successive stages of title/abstract screening and then full-text screening for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis will be applied to included studies in three phases: open coding; axial coding; and abstraction. The extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. Ethics and dissemination: Formal ethics approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, workshops, and executive summaries/reports for key stakeholders and partners. Keywords: Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), Social Change, Community Advisory Boards (CABs), Lived Experiences, Community Resilience, Equity and Advocacy. Current status at publication date: A preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance. Disclosures: Funding: Funding support was provided by Queen’s University Office of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Department of Family Medicine, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
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 | 0.136 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".