At the feet of storytellers: Equity in early relational health conversations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early Relational Health (ERH) focuses attention on family-baby relationships during the first 1000 days of life. Positive ERH enhances child health and development and family wellbeing. Universal, early identification of RH and vulnerability could add value to care. How to screen, when, where, and with whom is the question. Tools and models for screening are practitioner-centered. Bias can affect family engagement and outcomes. This may be problematic for African American families. Authors present findings of a discourse analysis and phenomenological study of experiences of African American families' and HealthySteps Specialists' (HSS) of color with screening ERH in Washington, D.C., USA (N = 13). Findings indicate relevance, acceptance and utility may be influenced by positionality, cultural context, issues of equity, and engagement in mutual reflection. A family-centered approach that opened space for non-dominant knowledge about ERH made positive differences in engagement and utility for families and practioners alike. Health and vulnerability were detected reliably using this approach. Outcomes include new theories about ERH-focused visits with African American families and infants, and a new model for centering ERH in pediatric practice, entitled Early Relational Health Conversations. ERH-C is a family reflection model, not necessarily dyadic. It may have value for other populations. Future directions in ERH-C research are suggested.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".