The Promise of Equity: A Review of Health Equity Research in High-Impact Quality Improvement Journals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equity is a core domain of health care quality. This study characterizes equity research in the quality improvement (QI) literature. The data sources were all review articles, methodology articles, original research, and research letters/abstracts published in 5 high-impact QI journals in 2015. Using the Institute of Medicine definition of equity, 2 reviewers assessed the abstracts to identify equity-focused articles. The number of Google Scholar citations and study site were recorded for each abstract. For equity-focused studies, the equity topic was recorded. Of 684 abstracts, 63 (9.2%) investigated equity topics. A weighted average of 7.4% of abstracts examined equity. The most commonly studied equity topics were health care resource scarcity, race/ethnicity, and mental health. Equity-focused articles received equal citations and were more likely to be conducted in low-/middle-income countries when compared with articles unrelated to equity. Few articles published in 5 leading QI journals addressed topics related to equity.
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.
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 | 0.645 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it