ArticlePediatric radiology2010
Developing participatory research in radiology: the use of a graffiti wall, cameras and a video box in a Scottish radiology department.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipatory research is increasingly advocated for use in health and health services research and has been defined as a 'process of producing new knowledge by systematic enquiry, with the collaboration of those being studied'. The underlying philosophy of participatory research is that those recruited to studies are acknowledged as experts who are 'empowered to truly participate and have their voices heard'. Research methods should enable children to express themselves. This has led to the development of creative approaches of working with children that offer alternatives to, for instance, the structured questioning of children by researchers either through questionnaires or interviews.
objectiveTo examine the feasibility and potential of developing participatory methods in imaging research. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe employed three innovative methods of data collection sequentially, namely the provision of: 1) a graffiti wall; 2) cameras, and 3) a video box for children's use. While the graffiti wall was open to all who attended the department, for the other two methods children were allocated to each 'arm' consecutively until our target of 20 children for each was met.
resultsThe study demonstrated that it was feasible to use all three methods of data collection within the context of a busy radiology department. We encountered no complaints from staff, patients or parents. Children were willing to participate but we did not collect data to establish if they enjoyed the activities, were pleased to have the opportunity to make comments or whether anxieties about their treatment inhibited their participation. The data yield was disappointing. In particular, children's contributions to the graffiti wall were limited, but did reflect the nature of graffiti, and there may have been some 'copycat' comments. Although data analysis was relatively straightforward, given the nature of the data (short comments and simple drawings), the process proved to be extremely time-consuming. This was despite the modest amount of data collected.
conclusionsNovel methods of engaging with children have been shown to be feasible although further work is needed to establish their full potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.