Building evidence to advance health equity: a systematic review on care-related outcomes for older, minoritised populations in long-term care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advancing health equity requires more contextualised evidence. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise published evidence using an existing framework on the origins of health disparities and determine care-related outcome disparities for residents of long-term care, comparing minoritised populations to the context-specific dominant population. DESIGN: Systematic review. SUBJECTS: Residents of 24-hour long-term care homes. METHODS: The protocol was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42021269489). Literature published between 1 January 2000 and 26 September 2021, was searched, including studies comparing baseline characteristics and outcomes in minoritised versus dominant populations. Dual screening, two-reviewer verification for extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to ensure rigour. Studies were synthesized using a conceptual framework to contextualise evidence according to multi-level factors contributing to the development of care disparities. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 34 included studies demonstrated disparities in care outcomes for minoritised groups compared to majority groups. Thirty-one studies observed differences in individual-level characteristics (e.g. age, education, underlying conditions) upon entry to homes, with several outcome disparities (e.g. restraint use, number of medications) present at baseline and remaining or worsening over time. Significant gaps in evidence were identified, particularly an absence of literature on provider information and evidence on the experience of intersecting minority identities that contribute to care-related outcome disparities in long-term care. CONCLUSION: This review found differences in minoritised populations' care-related outcomes. The findings provide guidance for future health equity policy and research-supporting diverse and intersectional capacity building in long-term care.
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 | 0.066 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".