Co-Designing Video Welcome Tours with Children in Paediatric Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Best practices in sharing information with children is scarce in a healthcare environment, and there is limited literature that involves children as co-designers of their own information. To demystify the hospital space for child clients and their families, a co-design project was conducted and designed with two research questions: (1) How can paediatric hospitals produce meaningful information designed by children, for children? (2) What are some best practices for co-designing with children with disabilities in healthcare settings? This study’s aim was to produce a video tour of Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital that is co-designed by children in the disability community, for children in the disability community. The ability to assess the co-design process reflexively helped to identify practices that can inform and guide similar paediatric co-design in the future. The need for projects that are co-created and accessible online have risen. Co-created healthcare projects that centre the voices of the young disability community are feasible, applicable, and impactful, and this population should not be overlooked or unrecognized. Through this study, a template and resources are provided for healthcare systems to easily implement their own unique co-design sessions with young participants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".