Caregivers with limited English proficiency: Satisfaction with primary pediatric healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a growing 25.5 million people in the United States experiencing limited-English proficiency (LEP), there is a concern over these individuals’ experiences in healthcare. Health outcomes of LEP status are well-documented for adults in hospitals; however, less is known about patient experience, pediatric populations, and primary care settings. This study investigated differences in caregiver satisfaction between families with and without LEP receiving healthcare for their child. A sample of 25,118 caregivers whose children from birth to 17 years had met with any healthcare providers in the past year was used. Analyses consisted of unpaired t -tests comparing mean satisfaction of LEP and English-proficient (EP) caregivers in the domains of how often primary healthcare providers spent enough time with the child , listened , provided specific information , demonstrated sensitivity to the family’s values , and made the respondent feel like a partner . In all aspects of caregiver satisfaction, mean satisfaction scores were significantly lower for LEP caregivers than EP caregivers. The largest drops were seen in perceived time and sensitivity. These results highlight a need to ensure LEP families receive equitable and high-quality primary care services, ultimately building trust in the healthcare system and improving children’s health and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".