MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090155766 · doi:10.1353/hpu.2011.0113

Medical Home Disparities for Latino Children by Parental Language of Interview

2011· article· en· W2090155766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Ross DeCamp, HwaJung Choi, Matthew M. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Language barrierHealth careMedicineHealth equityMedical homeFamily medicineNational Health Interview SurveyGerontologyPsychologyNursingPrimary carePublic healthEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examination of Latino children in aggregate ignores important subgroup differences due to the parents' English language ability. Previous reports of the pediatric medical home have not stratified Latino children by parental language differences to compare the two groups directly. We analyzed the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health to determine medical home prevalence among Latino children, stratified by language of parental interview. Most Latino children with a Spanish-language parental interview had a usual source of care, but only one-quarter had a medical home. Striking medical home disparities persisted for Latino children with a Spanish-language interview, even after adjustment for potential confounders. Lack of a medical home was associated with disparities in the quality of care, more so than access disparities. Addressing health care disparities for Latino children requires particular attention to the unique needs of Latino children with parents who may experience language barriers during health care encounters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Care for the Poor and UnderservedSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207