Orienting child- and family-centered care toward equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child- and family-centered care (CFCC) is being increasingly adopted internationally as a fundamental philosophical approach to the design, delivery, and evaluation of children's services in diverse primary and acute health care contexts. CFCC has yet to be explored in the context of families and children whose health and health care is likely to be compromised by multifaceted social and structural factors, including racialization, material deprivation, and historically entrenched power imbalances. To date, an equity orientation for CFCC has not been examined or developed. This is a critical area of inquiry, given the increasing evidence that children in families who face such inequities have poor health outcomes. This article examines dominant discourses on CFCC in the context of families and children who are at greater risk of health inequities in wealthy countries, drawing on Canada as a useful example. It outlines an evidence-based approach to equity-oriented care that the authors contend has the potential to orient CFCC toward equity and provide greater clarity in the conceptualization, implementation, measurement, and evaluation of CFCC in ways that can benefit all families and children including those who have typically been excluded from research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".