Perceptions of Discrimination among Mexican American Families of Seriously Ill Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes Mexican American family members' descriptions of perceived discrimination by pediatric health care providers (HCPs) and the families' reactions to the HCPs' discriminatory conduct. A retrospective, grounded theory design guided the overall study. Content analysis of interviews with 13 participants from 11 families who were recruited from two children's hospitals in Northern California resulted in numerous codes and revealed that participants perceived discrimination when they were treated differently from other, usually white, families. They believed they were treated differently because they were Mexican, because they were poor, because of language barriers, or because of their physical appearance. Participants reported feeling hurt, saddened, and confused regarding the differential treatment they received from HCPs who parents perceived "should care equally for all people." They struggled to understand and searched for explanations. Few spoke up about unfair treatment or complained about poor quality of care. Most assumed a quiet, passive position, according to their cultural norms of respecting authority figures by being submissive and not questioning them. Participants did not perceive all HCPs as discriminatory; their stories of discrimination derived from encounters with individual nurses or physicians. However, participants were greatly affected by the encounters, which continue to be painful memories. Despite increasing efforts to provide culturally competent palliative care, there is still need for improvement. Providing opportunities for changing HCPs' beliefs and behaviors is essential to developing cultural competence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".