DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD AS PART OF A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH PROJECT TO DEVELOP HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING INTERVENTIONS FOR NEWCOMER FAMILIES IN HAMILTON, ONTARIODESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD AS PART OF A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH PROJECT TO DEVELOP HEALTHY ACTIVE LIVING INTERVENTIONS FOR NEWCOMER FAMILIES IN HAMILTON, ONTARIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Newcomer populations to Canada face unique barriers to healthcare, including cultural, linguistic, and systemic challenges, necessitating the development of tailored, culturally sensitive interventions. This dissertation focuses on the role a Community Advisory Board (CAB) plays in a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project that addresses the risk of type 2 diabetes, obesity, and chronic health conditions amongst newcomer families and children. The dissertation begins by introducing the context and urgency of obesity and type 2 diabetes as pressing public health issues amongst newcomers. This section highlights the intersection of the social determinants of health, cultural factors, and systemic barriers that contribute to these conditions. The second section delves into CBPR methodology, exploring its suitability for addressing complex public health challenges and its application in CAB development. This chapter provides a theoretical and practical foundation for integrating community voices into all stages of intervention design, from conception to evaluation. The third section presents a scoping review that synthesizes existing literature on nature based healthy active living intervention development and the use of tools or methods to inform collaborative work in this space. This review identifies best practices, gaps in knowledge, and insights for collaborative intervention development, laying the groundwork for this study's unique contribution. The fourth section describes the CAB design process in detail, showcasing the steps taken to ensure inclusivity, cultural relevance, and meaningful engagement of newcomer community members and community partners. Next the discussion on how we adopted a multiple methods approach to evaluate the CAB's functioning, including surveys and qualitative interviews to capture the perspectives and experiences of CAB members. This section highlights how the CAB fosters co-creation, and shared decision-making among diverse stakeholders. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the challenges encountered, such as navigating power dynamics, addressing logistical constraints, and managing differing expectations among CAB members. It also reflects on the lessons learned and implications for future research and practice, offering practical recommendations for leveraging CABs in CBPR projects aimed at improving the health and well-being of marginalized communities. Finally, an epilogue ties together the findings, emphasizing the potential of CABs in CBPR to empower communities, reduce health disparities, and drive systemic change. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on participatory research methodologies and provides a roadmap for future efforts to design and evaluate interventions that are truly community-centered.
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 | 0.057 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".