Design Thinking for Health Disparities and Interdisciplinary Knowledge Translation: An LGBTQ+ Youth Health Literacy Project
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
This article discusses the use of codesign, design thinking (DT), and design jams in collaboration with interdisciplinary scholars, service providers, and community-based stakeholders as an approach to social work intervention development-specifically, to tackle health inequities and timely knowledge translation (KT). An application of these methods to the problem of sexual health disparities and lack of access to inclusive sexual health education in school-based settings for LGBTQ+ youth is discussed. LGBTQ+ Youth HeLP (Health Literacy Project) is a holistic online sexual health resource providing evidence-based information to LGBTQ+ youth in an accessible and age-appropriate format. This article considers potential opportunities and obstacles for utilizing DT to develop responsive solutions to health inequities and health-related KT learned from the project. Codesign offers effective options for generating collaborations that may increase cross-stakeholder perspective taking in group settings and produce high-quality outputs with increased likelihood of uptake.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it