TAX4U Pilot Trial: Addressing Material Needs in the Pediatric Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interventions to address poverty and food insecurity in pediatric hospital care have been scarce. Access to government support is based on the completion of taxes. Medical-financial partnerships are defined as novel cross-sector collaborations in which health care systems and financial service organizations work collaboratively to improve health by reducing financial stress. The objective of our pilot study was to assess the feasibility of implementing a "free tax service" within a pediatric academic hospital setting. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial "TAX4U" was conducted from November 2020 until April 2021 in the general inpatient setting of an academic pediatric hospital. Eligible families were randomly assigned to receive either "free tax services" according to the Canada Revenue Agency-funded Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) or "care as usual." RESULTS: A total of 140 caregivers filled in the 8-question recruitment survey. We found that 101 (72%) families were not eligible to participate in the study. Reasons for ineligibility were not meeting CVITP criteria (n = 59, 58%), already filed tax (n = 25, 25%), and families did not sign the consent form (n = 17, 17%). Thirty-nine families were randomly assigned, with 20 (51.3%) families assigned to the intervention and 19 (48.7%) families receiving care as usual. Ultimately, 7 (35%) families received the tax intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Offering free tax services may be feasible and reached vulnerable families in a pediatric hospital setting; however, the inclusion criteria of the CVITP program did not meet the needs of caregivers. Further research should explore offering a full-scope medical-financial partnership that meets the needs of low-income families in a hospital setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".